Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines A Practical Guide For Field Workers

ACF INTERNATIONAL
Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and

Evaluation Guidelines
A practical guide for field workers
Food Security and Livelihood
Monitoring and Evaluation
A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR FIELD WORKERS

October 2011
ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 1

October 2011
Editing ACF International
Cover page photo: Isabel S. Navarro, Philippines
©ACF International. All rights reserved
2 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed to the development of these ACF Food Security and Livelihood
Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines, and their inputs were received with much appreciation,
though it is impossible to name them all. Thanks to all staff and country programme members who
have contributed with discussions and ideas.
Special thanks should be given to all those who have worked in the Food Security and Livelihood
departments of ACF Headquarters and who all contributed in some way to develop the department
and lay the foundation of the ACF Food Security and Livelihood Booklet Series.
This book was developed by Jane Waite in coordination with an internal ACF review working group
consisting of Maria Bernardez, Muriel Calo, Amaïa Bessouet, Anne-Lyse Coutin, Helene Deret, Saul
Guerrero, Julien Jacob, Hanna Mattinen, Julien Morel, Silke Pietzsch, and Marie Sophie Whitney.
Camille Guyot-Bender has supported the editing and finalisation of the manual.
The book was reviewed by an external peer reference group comprised of Patrick Foley, Geraud
Devred, Jody Harris, Mark Henderson, Helmut Scheuer, Devrig Velly and Wondimu Zike.

PREAMBLE
This book is part of a series of food security and livelihood programme books developed by ACTION
AGAINST HUNGER | ACF International and is based upon a consolidation of experiences and
investigations led over the past years in the field. This series looks at and develops specific aspects
of the different food security and livelihood programmes, especially the technical tools that can be
used within the scope of precise projects. Each of these books can be read alone or they can be
complemented and reinforced with the other ACF Food Security and Livelihood books included in
the series constituting a ‘food security and livelihood kit’, which can be presented as follows:
INTRODUCTORY TO
FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS:
INTERVENTION PRINCIPLES
Monitoring & Evaluation
Food Security Food Income

Cash based Agriculural
Assessments and Assistance Generating
interventions Rehabilitation
Surveillance Activities
This book addresses overarching monitoring and evaluation aspects which are applicable to all the
various thematic interventions implemented by ACF FSL teams in the field. Hence all of the above
thematic interventions are reflected in the indicator framework of these monitoring and evaluation
guidelines.
The books address a variety of audiences including the international humanitarian community,
technical and operation field workers and the public who wishes to learn more about food security
and livelihoods at the international level. Each book contains a detailed index with examples of the
different tools that can be used for the implementation of the programmes, a glossary of technical
terminology and commonly asked questions that can give the reader a quick response to key points
highlighted throughout the document. All of these books are subject at all times to additions and or
improvements following the development of the food security and livelihood departments at ACF
International and the continued internal and external evaluations of the different food security and
livelihood activities.
In 2009, the food security and livelihood teams of ACF International recognized the need for a
harmonized guidance document on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of programme implementation.
A guidance document which would support food security and livelihood teams in the field to improve
the overall understanding of the importance of monitoring and evaluation as well as the process of
M&E activities throughout the programme cycle management, and the usage of the created data.
This guide to M&E is by no means exhaustive, but a cross-cutting approach on how to plan for M&E
through-out a food security and livelihood project’s lifecycle. Project teams should use this guide
alongside relevant thematic guidance for specific types of food security and livelihood projects (See
cash-based,
references above), as well as to complement other resources on project management such as on

assessments, project cycle management, the ACF Evaluation Policy and Guideline, and ACF FSL
Guiding Principles. Different types of M&E data will be required depending on the project activity
and type. The types of activities to be looked at in this guideline include Agriculture interventions,
Livestock and Fishery interventions, Food Assistance, Cash Based interventions1, Education /
Training / Capacity Building interventions, Disaster Risk Management (DRM) & Natural Resource
Management (NRM), Hunger Safety Net and Social Protection interventions, Income Generating
Activities (IGA), and Surveillance / Early Warning System interventions.
_____________________________________
1
Cash is primarily seen as a tool to deliver programmes rather than as a programme activity per se. However, as extensive
programming is

BOOK OBJECTIVES
The need for these guidelines has arisen from a series of changes in ACF’s operating context:
• Growing internal and external accountability requirements on programme performance;

• An internal move to have a clear link between interventions and ACF’s core objective: namely, to
prevent malnutrition, either through treatment or prevention. Food Security & Livelihoods (FSL)
programmes should therefore be linked to this overall objective, with M&E activities assessing
the extent to which programme activities achieve this;
• As programme integration and need to demonstrate results grow, so M&E processes have
become more complex. To ensure a common understanding of what best M&E practice looks
like through-out a project cycle, standard FSL M&E guidelines were required.
These guidelines have therefore been developed to:
1. Put in place a comprehensive though not exhaustive set of FSL M&E guidelines and associated
set of FSL indicators and toolkit that encourages best practice in M&E for ACF;
2. Introduce a common harmonized approach to and understanding of the purpose of M&E

activities across different ACF missions, in order to;
a. Assess progress against plans and inform any corrective measures
required;
b. Improve effectiveness by feeding M&E lessons learned back into
programme planning;
c. Improve data collection and analysis to better understand and measure the impact
of ACF programmes, and how this can be improved;
3. Ensure M&E activities across a project cycle are in line with the ACF Project Cycle
Management (PCM) approach (see Section 1.4.6);
4. Be accountable to ACF stakeholders (beneficiaries, donors, partners etc.), through more

effective and participatory M&E, and reporting;
5. Supplement existing thematic ACF guidance (e.g. programme intervention booklets and
guidelines, Evaluation Policy, etc.)
The decision on the core and thematic indicator framework tries to harmonise and standardise
monitoring information collected throughout the various countries programmes and projects
implemented by ACF FSL teams all over the world. The definition of the various level indicators has
been a great exercise and has created many discussions amongst and between the internal and
external review groups. The current proposition is hence a compromise which will be implemented
and reviewed following application and evidence gathering. Following a review, the core and
thematic indicators will be updated and appropriated to the purpose of measuring impact
of FSL programmes on the occurrence of malnutrition.

INTRODUCTION to the guidelines
ACF works in a number of different contexts, in which project cycles vary in length of time. These
have different M&E requirements and approaches, which should be defined at project planning
stage (see Section 2). They broadly include:
1. Emergency contexts – Given the fast-changing context of onset emergency operations with
focus on responding to immediate needs and saving lives, rather than objectives with possible
issues of access, a simple and flexible M&E system, which emphasizes regular monitoring that
can quickly inform programming, is required. Monitoring activities will tend to focus more on
outputs (e.g. number of beneficiaries) and to some degree outcomes (e.g. change in dietary
diversity; see section 1.7.2, Annex 23: Designing a Logical Framework and Indicators) given
the short time frames of implementation. It is difficult to assess longer-term impact in a rapidly
changing context, and even more so to attribute how each project contributes to this. Joint
assessments and evaluations by all actors working in a sector/region can help understanding
around impact, while Real Time Evaluations (RTEs see section 1.2.3) that can be done rapidly
and inform programming best suit the needs of this context.
2. Recovery and rehabilitation contexts - Monitoring activities to focus on outputs and outcomes
(see section 1.7.2, Glossary of Key Terms). Impact evaluations after activities have ceased are
encouraged to gauge longer-term change.
3. Chronic crisis contexts – Monitoring of longer-term outcome indicators of change and impact
are critical in this context to follow up on change that has been facilitated.
4. Resilience-building and preparedness contexts - Greater emphasis should be given to impact

in M&E activities, given longer operational timeframes. Output and outcome data will also form a
part of monitoring progress towards the longer term goal. Basic M&E forms to collect data before
an emergency and for contingency planning should also be used.
As these are general M&E guidelines on processes and tools for FSL, that apply in emergency,
recovery and chronic crisis contexts, as well as to different sized missions and projects, the speed
with which they are done will vary with recommendations made in Part 2.
Guidelines Target Audience

The FSL M&E guidelines are primarily intended for the following audience:
• ACF Project Managers and Coordinators responsible for designing and managing FSL
projects and programmes, to ensure those implementing adhere to at least minimum standards
in M&E (see section 3.1.4);
• ACF M&E Officers and other staff implementing projects who are responsible for undertaking
M&E activities, so they have a common understanding to best practice in M&E;
• ACF consultants undertaking rapid and in-depth assessments in emergency, recovery and
chronic crisis contexts, that help shape intervention and therefore M&E plans;
• ACF Advisors who support programmes, so they can provide common advice on M&E;
• ACF partners and other stakeholders, to ensure understanding of and coordination with ACF
approach to M&E.

The guidelines have been designed to also be accessible to a wider audience. They aim to introduce
new staff to ACF M&E processes, ensure current staff have a common approach to M&E, and can
also be shared with partner organisations and other stakeholders to facilitate discussions on joint
M&E.
Guidelines Setup
The guidelines use a step-by-step approach to M&E, with checklists at each step and a summary
checklist in the Annex 44: M&E Checklist. The broader principle of project management applies;
as with preparing to undertake project activities, so the bulk of the thinking about M&E should
happen at a project’s planning stage, with processes and structures to undertake M&E put in
place at that moment. Users are thus encouraged to read the guidance before embarking on a
project; however, it can also be used selectively.
Key points are highlighted in bold throughout the text or as NOTE boxes, while each section of
the guidelines has a summary. Links to annexes and toolkits are referred to at each relevant step
of the process.
As these are general M&E guidelines for FSL, that may apply in emergency, recovery and chronic
crisis contexts, as well as to different sized missions and projects, the order of steps recommended
may vary as might the speed and thoroughness with which they are done. However, the process
and tools are applicable to all contexts.
Definition of Projects and Programmes

The terms project and programme are often used as one and the same. To ensure a clear division of
how each fits in the path towards meeting organizational goals, these can be defined as:
A project is a set of coordinated activities undertaken to meet a specific goal and purpose
in a set time period and budget. Projects with a common goal form a programme, which can
be thematic or geographic.
A programme is therefore broader in scope and contains a coordinated set of projects.

Programme goals can be thematic or geographic, such as an emergency or a country programme.
Programmes work to meet organizational objectives. As such FSL activities may only be part of a
programme that also includes projects from other sectors.
With projects as subsets of a programme, M&E activities are more intense and involved at project
level as more regular decisions are required to keep a project on track against its objectives. Some
project monitoring data can be cumulated (e.g. number of beneficiaries, of contribution of different
activities to changes in malnutrition levels) to a programme and organisational level to inform longer-
term strategic decision making.
A country strategy is implemented through programmes supported by projects which

are funded through contracts. Information gathered through the monitoring of projects and
programmes will therefore contribute to monitoring of the progress of a strategy.
References in this guidance will be to projects that contribute to an overall FSL programme.

Structure of the guidelines
These guidelines consist of three parts, annexes and toolkits:
Chapter 1. Introduction to Monitoring and Evaluation

This chapter provides an introduction to the principles of M&E, helping to think of the issues that
need to be addressed when planning a project.
Chapter 2. Step-by-step approach to M&E in project cycle

This chapter adopts a step-by-step approach to setting up an M&E system for a project and
associated tools to facilitate this, including a set of core and thematic FSL indicators.
Chapter 3 Cross-cutting M&E issues

This chapter looks at cross-cutting issues for M&E throughout the project cycle.
Annexes
The Annexes are included in the main body of the guidelines for easy access and guidance on the
core indicators, and resources to support planning and implementation of M&E.
Further, ACF and other resources have been used for the development of this guideline and these
are cited in the Bibliography to direct users to additional materials.
Toolkits
The toolkits include various tools, formats and templates to support the implementation and
application of M&E along the project cycle management. These are referred to as Toolkits and are
attached to the guidelines as separate documents to maintain their accessibility to the field worker.

Abbreviations
AAH Action Against Hunger
AAR After Action Reviews
ACF Action Contre la Faim International
CBI Cash Based Interventions
DPCRR Disaster Preparedness, Contingency and Risk Reduction
DRM Disaster Risk Management
EWS Early Warning System
FSC Food Consumption Score
FSL Food Security & Livelihoods
HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score
HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Scale
HH Household
IDDS Individual Dietary Diversity Score
IGA Income Generating Activities
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MAHFP Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning
MUAC Mid-Upper Arm Circumference
NRM Natural Resource Management
PCM Project Cycle Management
RTE Real Time Evaluations
SSN Social Safety Net

Table of Contents
List of Annexes 12
list of toolkits 13
chapter 1 - Introduction to Monitoring and Evaluation 18

1.1 Defining Monitoring and its Purpose 19
1.2 Defining Evaluation and its Purpose 23
1.3 Difference between Monitoring & Evaluation 27
1.4 Defining a good M&E system 28
1.5 Importance of Participatory M&E Systems 31
1.6 Undertaking Monitoring and Evaluation 35
1.7 Monitoring Results and Impact Using a Logical Framework 36
Summary of Chapter 1 38
chapter 2 - Step-by-step approach to M&E 40

2.1 Step 1: Agree on Purpose and Principles of the Project’s M&E System 41
2.2 Step 2: Agree on and Design Core Documents to set up an M&E System 45
2.3 Step 3: Establish Project M&E System 51
2.4 Step 4: Agree on Field Monitoring Data Collection and Management Process 57
2.5 Step 5: Agree on Monitoring Data Analysis Process 72
2.6 Step 6: Agree on Process for Monitoring Data Utilization and Reporting 75
2.7 Step 7: Review and Revise M&E Plans Based on Progress 80
2.8 Step 8: Agree on Process of Evaluation Management 83
chapter 3 - Cross-Cutting M&E Issues 96

3.1 Step 1: Ensure M&E System Complies with M&E Standards and Ethics 97
3.2 Step 2: Monitor the Application of Codes & Standards 102
3.3 Step 3: Assess which Cross-cutting Issues to Build into the M&E System 103

ANNEXES
List of Annexes
Annex 1: How to Undertake a Trend or PESSTLE Analysis 107
Annex 2: Types of Monitoring 111
Annex 3: Types of Feedback/Complaint Mechanisms 111
Annex 4: Data Collection Method Types and Sources 113
Annex 5: Individual Interview Guidance Note 119
Annex 6: Household Interview Guidance Note 120
Annex 7: Focus Group Discussion Guidance Note 121
Annex 8: Observation Guidance Note 122
Annex 9: After Action Review 123
Annex 10: Types of Evaluations 124
Annex 11: Semi-Structured Interviews Guidance Note 125
Annex 12: Pair-wise Ranking Guidance Note 128
Annex 13: Wealth Ranking Guidance Note 129
Annex 14: Proportional Piling Guidance Note 130
Annex 15: Transect Walk Guidance Note 131
Annex 16: Seasonal Calendar Guidance Note 132
Annex 17: Venn or Institutional Diagramming Guidance Note 133
Annex 18: Mapping Analysis Guidance Note 135
Annex 19: Most Significant Change Guidance Note 138
Annex 20: Decision Making Analysis Guidance Note 141
Annex 21: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
Analysis Guidance Note 142
Annex 22: Community Meetings and Verbal Reporting Guidance Note 143
Annex 23: Designing a Logical Framework and Indicators 147
Annex 24: Stakeholder Information Needs Matrix 152
Annex 25: Types of Participation 154
Annex 26: Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) Guidance Note 155
Annex 27: Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS) Guidance Note 159
Annex 28: Food Consumption Score Guidance Note 163
Annex 29: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) Guidance Note 168
Annex 30: Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) Guidance Note 176
Annex 31: Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) Guidance Note 180
Annex 32: Market Price Survey Guidance Note 184
Annex 33: Counting Beneficiaries Guidance Note 188
Annex 34: Baseline Survey Guidance Note 191
Annex 35: Baseline Survey Template 192
Annex 36: Steps for data monitor recruitment and Job description 204
Annex 37: Monitoring plan example 206
Annex 38: ACF Evaluation ToR Template 208
Annex 39: Advantages and Disadvantages of Internal vs. External Evaluations 214
Annex 40: Codes and Standards Overview 214
Annex 41: Inception Report Template 215
Annex 42: Interview Protocol Card 217
Annex 43: Establishing a Community-Based Monitoring System 217
Annex 44: Step-by-step Checklist for M&E Activities 218

Toolkits
Toolkit 1: Post Evaluation Action Plan
Toolkit 2: Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) Food Assistance/Food for Work template
Toolkit 3: ACF Core and Thematic Indicator Framework
Toolkit 4: Monitoring & Evaluation plan and calendar template
Toolkit 5: M&E Plan Example: Syria
Toolkit 6: M&E Plan Example Palestine
Toolkit 7: M&E Human Resource plan and timesheets
Toolkit 8: Risk Log Template
Toolkit 9: Stakeholder analysis template
Toolkit 10: Complaints Log template
Toolkit 11: Stepped Wedge Cluster Design Sampling
Toolkit 12: On-site monitoring template
Toolkit 13: Indicator Progress Database template
Toolkit 14: Activity Progress Report (APR) template
Toolkit 15: Action Log template
Toolkit 16: Reporting Plan template
Toolkit 17: Decision Log template
Toolkit 18: Lessons Learned template
Toolkit 19: Budget Checklist template
Toolkit 20: Evaluation timetable template
Toolkit 21: Post Evaluation Action Plan template
Toolkit 22: Market Price Collection Sheet template

Bibliography
This bibliography encompasses all reading, reference and guidance documents of many
organisations and initiatives, which have been consulted and used for the development of the ACF
FSL M&E guidelines.
ACF resources
ACF Charter - http://www.actionagainsthunger.org/who-we-are/international-charter
FSL Sector Guidance
ACF (2008), Agricultural Programmes: From initial assessment to programme implementation
ACF (2010), Food Security and Livelihood Assessment: A Practical Guide for Field Workers
ACF (2010), Food Security & Livelihood Surveillance Guidelines: A Practical Guide for Field Workers
ACF (2008), Implementing Cash-based Interventions: A Guideline for Aid Workers
ACF (2010), Income Generating Activities: A key Concept in Sustainable Food Security
ACF (2008), Introduction to Food Security Intervention Principles
ACF (2008), An Introduction to Working in Food Security: Handbook on Project Cycle Management
to accompany a one-week induction course for FSOs
ACF Afghanistan (2010), Household Survey Field Guide for FSL Staff
Project Management Guidance
ACF (2006), Community-Driven Participation in Humanitarian Relief Programming: A Practical
Manual of Suggested Approaches and Tools for Field Practitioners
ACF (2006), Community Participation Approach Manual
ACF (2011), Evaluation Policy and Guidelines
ACF (2011), Disaster Risk Management for Communities
ACF (2009) Learning from Experience and Sharing Knowledge: A Capitalization Manual
Non-ACF resources
Printed Resources
ALNAP (2003), Annual Review of Humanitarian Action: Improving Monitoring to Enhance
Accountability and Learning
ALNAP and Groupe URD (2009), Participation Handbook for Humanitarian Field Workers: Involving
Crisis-Affected People in a Humanitarian Response
ALNAP (2010), The State of the Humanitarian System; www.alnap.org/pool/files/alnap-sohs-final.
pdf
American Evaluation Association (2004), Guiding Principles for Evaluators; http://www.eval.org/
Publications/GuidingPrinciples.asp
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J. and Mabry, L. (2006), RealWorld Evaluation: Working Under Budget, Time,
Data, and Political Constraints. Thousand Oaks, London
Beck, T. (2008), Evaluating humanitarian action using the OECD/DAC criteria, An ALNAP Guide for
humanitarian agencies, ALNAP; http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/eha_2006.pdf

Bilinsky, P. and Swindale, A. (2006), Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurement
of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide; Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project
(FANTA-2) and USAID - http://www.fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/HDDS_v2_Sep06.pdf
Bilinsky, P. and Swindale, A. (2010), Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) for
Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide Version 4; Food and Nutrition Technical
Assistance II Project (FANTA-2) and USAID, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance
Buchanan-Smith, M. & Cosgrave, J. (2010), Evaluation of Humanitarian Action Course Reference
Manual, ALNAP; http://www.alnap.org/resources/guides/training.aspx
Care International (1997), Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines
Catholic Relief Services, PRA Manual on Methods, Practise & Tools and FAO. The Community’s
Toolbox. www.fao.org
Catley, A, Burns, J., Abebe, D. and SujiFeist, O. (2009), Participatory Impact Assessment: A Guide
for Practitioners; Feinstein International Centre, Tufts
CIDA (1990), CIDA Evaluation Guide
CIDA (1996), Guide to Gender-Sensitive Indicators; http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/inet/images.nsf/
vLUImages/Policy/$file/WID-GUID-E.pdf
Coates, V., Swindale, A., & Bilinsky, P. (2007), Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for
Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide; USAID
Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief (1994) Steering Committee for Humanitarian
Response and ICRC. http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/conduct/
The Coping Strategy Index, (2008), WFP, USAID, Care, Feinstein International Centre, Tango.
http://home.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp211058.pdf
Cosgrave, J., Ramalingam, B., & Beck, T. (2009), Real-time evaluations of humanitarian action,
ALNAP/ODI; http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/rteguide.pdf
Danish Refugee Council (DRC) (2008), Complaints Mechanism Handbook
Davies, R. and Dart, J. (2005), The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique A Guide to Its Use
Department for International Development (DFID), (2005), Guidance on Evaluation and Review
Department for International Development (DFID), (2003), Tools for Development A handbook for
those engaged in development activity
Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007), Impact Measurement and Accountability in
Emergencies: The Good Enough Guide; http://www.ecbproject.org/GoodEnoughGuide
European Commission (2004), Project Cycle Management Guidelines
ECHO (2005), Manual for Project Cycle Management
Fall, C.N. and A.A. Ndiaye A. (2005), Methodology for Capitalization and Enhancement of the
Experiences of IFAD Programmes in West and Central Africa
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1970), Food Composition Table for Africa; www.fao.org/
docrep/003/X6877E/X6877E00.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Bank (2008), Tracking Results in Agriculture and
Rural Development in Less-Than-Ideal Conditions: A Sourcebook of Indicators for Monitoring and
Evaluation
Food for the Hungry (2004) Barrier Analysis: Facilitator’s Guide

Gosling, L. and Edward, M. (1995), Toolkits: A Practical Guide to Assessment, Monitoring, Review
and Evaluation, Save the Children Fund, London
Group URD, Quality Compass. http://www.compasqualite.org/en/index/index.php
Hallam, A (1998), Evaluating Humanitarian Assistance Programmes in Complex Emergencies,
Good Practice Review Number 7, Relief and Rehabilitation Network, ODI.
HAP, 2010. The 2010 HAP Standard in Accountability and Quality Management.
Htwe, E. E. & Sandilands, D. ACF Burma, Wa Assessment Tool Kit.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2002), Handbook for Monitoring
and Evaluation
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (1994), The Code of Conduct for the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organizations in
Disaster Relief ; http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/idrl/I259EN.pdf
Mack, N., Woodsong, C., Macqueen, K., Guest, G., and Namey, E. (2005), Qualitative Research
Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide; USAID and Family Health International
Naylor, A. (2009), Development and Implementation of Sanitation Survey Using a Knowledge
Attitudes Practices (KAP) Model; University of South Florida
Joint Emergency Food Aid Programme (JEFAP) (2003), Manual for the Provision of General Food
Distributions during Emergency Programmes in Malawi
OECD DAC (2001), Glossary of Evaluation and Results Based Management Terms - http://www.
oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf
People in Aid, 2007. Code of Good Practice in the Management and Support of Aid Personnel.
http://www.peopleinaid.org/pool/files/code/code-en.pdf
Pirotte C. and Husson B. (1997), Entre Urgence et Développement – Pratiques Humanitaires
enquestions / Karthala
Shapiro, J. (2006), Action Planning Toolkit, CIVICUS
Shapiro, J. (2006), Monitoring and Evaluation, CIVICUS
SIDA (2004), A summary of the theory behind the LFA method: The Logical Framework Approach
Twigg, J. (2010), Characteristics of a Disaster Resilient Community: A Guidance Note; http://www.
abuhrc.org/about-us/projects/Pages/view.aspx?project=13
Typology of participation PRETTY J. & al, (1995), ‘Participatory Learning and Action: a Trainer’s
Guide’. London: IIED, quoted in the ACF Community Participation Approach Manual, 2006.
United Nations Development Programme (2009), Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating
for Development Results
United Nations World Food Programme VAM Unit, (2008), Food consumption analysis: Calculation
and use of the food consumption score in food security analysis, Version 1
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) (2010), Fuel-Efficient Stove Programs in
Humanitarian Settings: An Implementer’s Toolkit
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) (2009), Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
Strengthening Tool
Valadez, J. and Bamberger, M. (1994), Monitoring and Evaluating Social Programs in Developing
Countries: A Handbook for Policymakers, Managers, and Researchers; World Bank
White, G. and Wiles, P. (2008), Monitoring Overview and Guidance for Humanitarian Organisations;
ECHO

White, G. and Wiles, P. (2008), Monitoring Templates for Humanitarian Organisations; ECHO
White, G. and Wiles, P. (2008), Monitoring Tools for Humanitarian Organisations; ECHO
World Bank, (2004), Conducting Quality Impact Evaluations under Budget, Time and Data
Constraints
World Bank, (2004), Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods & Approaches
Internet-based resources
ALNAP -
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - Crop Prospects and Food Situation; http://www.fao.org/
giews/english/cpfs/index.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - Food Outlook; http://www.fao.org/giews/english/fo/index.
htm
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) - Crop and Food
Security Assessment Missions; http://www.fao.org/giews/english/alert/index.htm or http://www.wfp.
org/food-security/reports/CFSAM
Food Economy Group (FEG) - http://www.feg-consulting.com
Humanitarian Accountability Project, (2010), HAP 2010 Standard in Accountability and Quality
Management, www.hapinternational.org/projects/standard/hap_2010_standard.aspx
Hoddinott, J and Yisehac Y. (2002), Dietary Diversity as a Household Food Security Indicator; Food
and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development, Washington,
D.C - www.fantaproject.org/publications/dietdiversity1.shtml
IASC (2006), Gender Handbook for Humanitarian Action; http://www.humanitarianreform.org/
Default.aspx?tabid=656
Monitoring and Evaluation (MANDE) - http://mande.co.uk
OCHA website (useful for resources & news)
Proudlock, K., Ramalingam, B. & Sandison, P. (2009), Improving humanitarian impact assessment:
bridging theory and practice, ALNAP Review of Humanitarian Action, Ch. 2 pp. 1-84; http://www.
alnap.org/pool/files/8rhach2.pdf
Reliefweb - http://www.reliefweb.int
Sandison, P (2006), The Utilisation of Evaluations in ALNAP Review of Humanitarian Action, Ch. 3
pp. 89-144; http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/ch3-f1.pdf
Sphere (2011), The Sphere Project Handbook; http://www.sphereproject.org/
Transparency International (2010), Preventing Corruption in Humanitarian Operations, http://www.
transparency.org/global_priorities/other_thematic_issues/humanitarian_assistance/ti_projects_
activities
Twigg, J. (2010). Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community: A Guidance Note; http://www.
abuhrc.org/about-us/projects/Pages/view.aspx?project=13
United Nations Environment Group (UNEG) (2004), Standards for Evaluation in the UN System;
http://www.uneval.org/papersandpubs/documentdetail.jsp?doc_id=22
UNISDR (2005), Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction; http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf
World Food Programme (WFP) - assessment reports; http://www.wfp.org/food-security/reports
World Food Programme (2009), Monitoring & Evaluation Guidelines; http://www.wfp.org/content/
monitoring-and-evalutation-guidelines

chapter 1
Introduction to Monitoring and Evaluation
1 © ACF-Kenya, Paula Tenaglia

1.1 Defining Monitoring and its Purpose 19
1.2 Defining Evaluation and its Purpose 23
1.3 Difference between Monitoring & Evaluation 27
1.4 Defining a good M&E system 38
1.5 Importance of Participatory M&E Systems 31
1.6 Undertaking Monitoring and Evaluation 35
1.7 Monitoring Results and Impact Using a Logical Framework 36

Chapter objective
The aim of this section is to provide users with an introduction to the principles of Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E), their definitions, timing, different types of M&E, and help think about M&E related
issues that need to be addressed when planning a project.
1.1 Defining Monitoring and its Purpose

1.1.1 Defining monitoring
Monitoring is the systematic and continuous collection, analysis and utilization of information
on project achievements as implementation progresses. It is an on-going activity, taking place
continuously throughout an intervention (see section 1.4.6 M&E in Project Cycle Management).
Monitoring is a project management tool to identify achievements and challenges, any variance
between targets and what is actually achieved, and facilitate constant improvement modification.
A good monitoring system should be:
• Simple, relevant to and easily comprehensible against plans;

• Participatory and focused on beneficiary needs;
• Analytical, with information used for evidence-based decisions to improve performance;
• Accessible to stakeholders (e.g. affected populations, partners, donors, Government).
1.1.2 Purpose and importance of monitoring

The purpose of monitoring is to:
1. Assess the extent of progress of a project, if it is on track against its objectives and targets
and determine what still needs to be done to meet objectives.
• If the project is not on track, monitoring can identify risks or problems taking it off track,
as well as potential solutions and decisions to address these. Project field staff are in a
better position to undertake an analysis of problems and solutions as they are closer to the
implementation of activities, and should work with management to take those solutions forward.
Rapid identification and addressing problems improves effectiveness and avoids waste caused
by unresolved issues.
2. Assess the degree of relevance and success of a project through satisfaction feedback from
beneficiaries and other stakeholders on if needs are being addressed and quality control.
3. Identify successes and learning from positive experiences that can boost motivation and learn
lessons from challenges for future activities.
4. Provide data for evaluations.

• Building up monitoring data over time can highlight longer term trends to allow for more strategic
evaluation;
• It can also allow evaluations to assess the extent to which relevant cross-cutting issues are
being addressed (e.g. gender, HIV/Aids, climate change).
Monitoring is critical to a project’s success. If monitoring information is analysed regularly and used
effectively to make decisions, it can be invaluable to manage a project well, correct issues before
they become problems and ultimately make a different for those you are trying to assist. Monitoring
should not only focus on to who has received what; but it should assess the contribution of
humanitarian assistance and the difference made in populations and beneficiaries lives to address
their needs.

NOTE: Monitoring should not be seen as collecting information to be accountable to donors. Its
primary purpose is to allow project teams to run a project effectively, ensuring it has the
desired results for beneficiaries.
1.1.3 Importance of early planning for monitoring

Monitoring is integral to a project’s success and it is therefore important to plan early for it as:
• Planning for monitoring helps clarify project objectives, assumptions, indicators and
activities. Good indicators for which data can be collected, analysed and used to make
decisions about a project’s direction, makes monitoring and project management easier;
• Establish systematic, but simple, timely and participatory mechanisms to monitor towards
relevant indicators and programme principles - impact, outcome, output and process indicators,
to check on continuous relevance of interventions throughout changing contexts;
• Thinking about monitoring should start from assessment and problem identification stage when
consideration is given to what indicates a problem hence requiring intervention;
• Monitoring is sometimes perceived as just for donor accountability and therefore left as an after-
thought till implementation commences; however, a monitoring system should be designed to
meet the needs of staff and managers to run a project effectively.
1.1.4 Difference between monitoring and surveillance

Surveillance is the regular analysis of multi-sector integrated (e.g. FSL, nutrition and WASH) context
of the targeted populations / areas. It requires efficient sharing of findings and recommendations
in order to enable decision makers to define adequate strategies for timely responses to observed
changes in the operating context. Following up the evolution of this context through surveillance
activities allows for improved understanding of the operating context. Surveillance is undertaken as
stand-alone projects in each country and should produce regular reports, so serving as a practical tool
for decision making around early warning and risk disaster management, appropriate interventions
and lobbying. Surveillance activities being a project itself, requires monitoring and evaluation of
the surveillance activities (see ACF Surveillance Guidelines in Bibliography). Context monitoring
looks at changes that occur in a project’s wider operating context beyond the FSL context. It can
include food security and market-related issues that will be followed through surveillance, but will
also include wider aspects such as the political situation, the economy etc. that can affect the project
– see Annex 1: How to Undertake a Trend or PESSTLE Analysis.
Project monitoring assesses whether a project is achieving its objectives or not, and where
impacts for the population are achieved, and if not so where changes to the project need to be
made. It can allow for timely changes in project implementation in response to the evolving situation.

Box 1.1: Differentiating between surveillance and monitoring
Context Surveillance Project Monitoring
Objective To provide information on multi-sector To provide progress updates against
FSL, nutrition and WASH context project indicators, highlighting
indicators, to inform FSL strategies achievements and challenges, and
and decide what interventions are any variance between targets and
required dependent on the situation. what is actually achieved, for project
improvement
Methodology Qualitative and quantitative Qualitative and quantitative
information on changes in FSL information on changes in project
context indicators. indicators.
Timing Regular process surveillance project Continuous process throughout a
project
Results Updates on changes in the FSL Updates on changes in project
context and contribution to Early performance and impact on
warning systems beneficiaries.
Audience Field project and programme Field project and programme
personnel and decision makers in personnel and decision makers in
field and HQ. field, HQ and donors.
1.1.5 Types of Monitoring

There are different types of monitoring (see Annex 2: Types of Monitoring). The most important in
order of importance for projects are:
1. Result/progress monitoring – Assesses the effect and change brought about by the project,
in terms of the three levels of results (outputs, outcomes and impact – see section 1.7.2). For
follow up on these results, a baseline (see section 1.1.6) against which to establish progress
should be in place (e.g. comparing Pre-Project and Post-Project monitoring results). Progress
against outputs and outcomes can be gauged through monitoring, while impact (both intended
and unintended, positive and negative) is usually assessed through evaluations. Assessing
the extent of progress against each level of results allows for adjustments to be made where
required. For example, monitoring outputs, allows project managers to assess whether these
are contributing towards outcomes and impact, and if not, what alteration in inputs and activities
can be tried to correct this.
2. Process or activity monitoring – Assesses if resources or inputs (e.g. funds, goods in kind,
human resources) are being used at the planned rate, and activities are happening in line
with activity plans to deliver outputs. This is particularly important for managers in terms of
determining resource allocations.
3. Financial monitoring – Looks at whether income raised and expenditure spent are in line with
project plans, as well as assessing actual cost for inputs and activities against those in the
budget. This is done through budget follow up in liaison with the Finance team.
4. Beneficiary monitoring - Assesses beneficiary perception of and satisfaction with a project.
Beneficiary feedback or complaint mechanisms (see Section 2.3.5 /Annex 3) can help track
perceptions. As the key stakeholders in an intervention, allowing beneficiaries to participate in
the project and provide feedback is key to a successful project. Gathering indirect beneficiaries’
and non–beneficiaries’ feedback can also gauge success of a project.
Different project activities will require different types of monitoring. These are covered more
extensively in Annex 2: Types of Monitoring.

1.1.6 Baselines and Endlines – Essentials for Monitoring
Baseline and endline studies form an important part of any M&E system, and can be seen as a start
and end to monitoring activities, providing a snap shot of the status of the situation before activities
start and after their conclusion. A baseline in particular provides key information for M&E activities:
1. A baseline - gives a picture of the situation before project activities commence and provides
measurements for indicators before monitoring of change against these begins. This provides
benchmark data, so that M&E data collected during implementation can assess progress against the
baseline, the extent to which the project has made a difference, and the extent to which objectives
have been met. It is difficult to measure the impact of a project without having assessed the starting
situation.
2. An endline - measures the same aspects and indicators as the baseline though at the end of a
project, and so allows a comparison with baseline data to assess progress.
1.1.7 Methodologies for Monitoring

There are a number of different methodologies to carry out monitoring. These are outlined in section
2.4 and Annex 4: Data Collection Method Types and Sources. Examples of these include:
• Individual Interviews (see Annex 5)

• Household Interviews/Surveys (see Annex 6)
• Focus Group Discussions (see Annex 7)
• Observation (see Annex 8)
In order to determine which information to collect for monitoring, it should be:
• Possible to collect (and not too time consuming or costly),

• Possible to analyze in order to measure change, and reliable.
Box 1.2: Differentiating between qualitative and quantitative information

Information collected can be quantitative (numeric) or qualitative (descriptive observations):
1. Quantitative data are often used for monitoring to highlight “how much or how many”
and can be expressed in absolute numbers (e.g. 200 people in the sample are food insecure) or
as a percentage (50% of households in the area are food insecure). Data can also be expressed
as a ratio (20 kilos of rice per household), and is often used to highlight progress against indicators
of process/activities and results.
2. Qualitative information is descriptive and highlights how people feel about a situation,
attitudes, how things are done (processes) or how people behave. Qualitative information is
obtained by asking, observing, interpreting. It is often used in monitoring to explain quantitative
data, such as describe the reasons and rational for the extent of preferences or attitudes.

1.1.8 Frequency of Monitoring
The frequency of monitoring depends on what indicators are being monitored; it can be daily
(e.g. relief programming processes), weekly (e.g. distributions), monthly (e.g. prices, population
assisted), quarterly (e.g. training), etc.
The bulk of monitoring happens at project implementation phase. However, context monitoring can
happen at any point during a project; to make this information collected useful, it should feed into
project planning and decision-making. Decisions around what data should be collected as part of
monitoring will be decided at the assessment stage and when baselines are undertaken; these will
then feed into planning.
1.1.9 Monitoring Questions

Specific questions for specific monitoring types are addressed in Annex 2. In general, however,
monitoring should aim to answer the following questions:
Box 1.3: Key questions monitoring should answer

• Has there been any change in the operating environment/context? If so what and why? Are the
needs still the same, or have needs evolved that the programme is not addressing?
• To what extent are the right people being targeted by the project? How does it compare to overall
needs and input of other agencies? Is any readjustment required?
• Is the project activity plan on track? If not, why not and what can be done to correct this?
• If the current rate of progress continues, will project activities achieve the intended objectives
(outputs and outcomes)? If not, why not and what can be done to correct this?
• Is the project having any unanticipated effects? Are these positive or negative?
• Has the project achieved the intended indicator level?
1.2 Defining Evaluation and its Purpose

This section should be read in conjunction with ACF’s Evaluation Policy and Guideline.
1.2.1 Defining evaluation

ACF defines evaluation in its Evaluation Policy and Guideline as, a coordinated process of
data collection about the activities, systems, processes and outcomes of projects and /
or programmes, for use by specific people (internally and externally) to reduce uncertainties,
improve effectiveness and make (short, mid and/or long term) decisions with regards to what ACF
programmes are doing (see ACF Evaluation Guideline in Bibliography). Similarly, the Active Learning
Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) defines evaluation as
a systematic and impartial examination of humanitarian action intended to draw lessons to improve
policy and practice, and enhance accountability (See ALNAP reference in Bibliography).
Most evaluations are based on assessing performance against the OECD Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) criteria: Impact, Coherence, Coverage, Relevance / Appropriateness,
Effectiveness and Efficiency. These criteria are also adopted by ACF’s Evaluation Policy and
Guideline, and their use is encouraged in both evaluations and meta-evaluations (see Annex 10:
Types of Evaluation) at project and organizational level.
Evaluations may be based on assessing the extent to which projects have adhered to other
frameworks, such as codes and standards (e.g. the ACF Charter, the Red Cross and NGO Code of
Conduct; Sphere Standards etc) or thematic frameworks (e.g. Hyogo Climate Change Framework).

Evaluations are often confused with reviews and audits. These can be defined as:
• A review is a structured opportunity to reflect on a project and identify key successes and issues,
and so make informed decisions about project implementation to improve its effectiveness.
Reviews tend to be broader in scope, often focusing on more strategic issues, and less in depth
than evaluations. After Action Review (AAR - see Annex 9) is an increasingly popular tool to
facilitate reflection of an intervention’s effectiveness.
• An audit seeks to assess compliance with established rules, regulations or procedures. It differs
from an evaluation in this focus rather than on achievement and quality.
1.2.2 Purpose of Evaluation

Evaluations should always clarify their primary purpose around internal/external accountability or
learning and their primary audience. Irrespective of whether the purpose of the evaluation is for
accountability or learning, project beneficiaries should be at the heart of it. In reality, most evaluations
seek to combine accountability and learning objectives however, by identifying the primary purpose,
evaluation methodology will vary accordingly:
• Accountability-oriented evaluations – These look to hold implementers to account over

the extent to which intended objectives have been met and results (particularly impact)
achieved, and if not, why not. They tend to be externally led to allow for greater independence
and objectivity.
• Learning-oriented evaluations – These tend to focus on analysis and lessons learned
around why some things have or have not worked. They tend to question approach and
process rather than results. These are often internally-led given the learning focus.
As a less frequent event focusing on higher level analysis rather than monitoring, evaluations seek
to:
• Assess the extent of performance against higher level results (outcomes and impact – see
section 1.7) and the resources required to achieve these.
• Improve performance through assessment of success and failures, analysis of what caused
these and recommendations for improvement.
• Provide analysis to facilitate decision-making.
• Contribute to project and organisational learning, on how to better manage and deliver projects
to affected populations. They provide opportunities to reflect upon and share experience and
learning, to build on our strengths and address challenges.
• Uphold accountability and transparency to stakeholders by demonstrating whether or not
work carried out was in line with plans and in compliance with established standards. They also
provide opportunities for stakeholders, especially beneficiaries, to provide input.
• Provide information that can be used to support communication to stakeholders, resource
mobilization, advocacy, and to recognize and acknowledge accomplishments.
1.2.3 Types of Evaluation

There are a number of different evaluation types (see Annex 10: Types of Evaluations). The most
common types of project evaluations include:
• Mid-term evaluations – These are formative evaluations to assess performance against plans
and whether any external or internal factors changed requiring an alteration in plans. They
are undertaken half-way through project implementation to assess whether any changes are
required for the remainder of the project cycle.

• End-of-project evaluations – These are summative, and are undertaken at the end of a project
to assess performance against intended objectives. These tend to be externally led to allow for
an independence and objectivity.
• Impact evaluations – These are conducted some time after project activities cease to assess
long-term changes achieved relative to a project’s goal and purpose, and the sustainability of
the change.
• Meta-evaluations – Are designed to aggregate findings or draw common findings from a series
of evaluations, so that an organisation can address these. Meta-evaluations are a key part of
ACF’s Evaluation Policy and Guideline and are encouraged annually.
• Real-time evaluations (RTEs) – These are conducted during a project’s implementation to
get real-time analysis of progress against higher-level objectives and facilitate immediate
recommendations on changes to the project to improve implementation.
1.2.4 Differences between evaluation and capitalization

Capitalization of knowledge is defined as a process meant to build up a capital from
information or knowledge available in an organisation, in order to develop (the organization)
by making knowledge available to other institutions or actors. It is designed to ensure that every
individual’s experience is not confined to him or herself alone, but serves the community in a
knowledge sharing movement. The implementation of new projects or the conduct of new actions,
are facilitated by the preservation and transmission of acquired experience and knowledge (see
ACF Capitalization Manual in Bibliography). Much like an After Action Review (see Annex 9),
capitalization encourages analysis of experiences.
Box 1.4: Key questions capitalization should answer

• What happened?
• How did it happen?
• Why did it happen?
• What were the lessons learned?
• What were best practices and recommendations that we should capitalize?
The overall purpose of capitalization is to make knowledge, experiences and lessons learned
accessible and useful for ACF staff members and other stakeholders.
Capitalization differs from evaluation in that it seeks to facilitate internal learning around what
was done, and how and why the project did or did not achieve objectives, with recommendations
focus on approach and best practices. To that end, it tends to involve internal staff, or those who
have lived the experience.
Evaluations seek to assess whether results were achieved, and if so whether this was done
effectively, efficiently and in a sustainable manner. Recommendations and learning can be used to
make decisions about the current project or shape future projects or policies. Most evaluations are
done for accountability purposes and do not always ask questions around why certain processes
were followed. Evaluations are usually carried out by external consultants or internal staff not
directly involved in the project.

Box 1.5: Differentiating between evaluation and capitalization
Evaluation Capitalisation
Objective To assess whether project/ To learn lessons of best practice
policy/ organization results for future application through the
were achieved, if this was build up and sharing of information
done effectively, efficiently and or knowledge within and between
sustainably. Most evaluations are organizations.
done for accountability purposes.
Methodology Internally or externally facilitated, Internally facilitated desk and
including desk reviews, interviews workshop-based reviews of project or
and field research. organizational lessons around what
was done, how and why.
Timing Project mid-point, end or real time. Mainly at project end.
Results Findings (positive/negative) Lessons learned (neutral) around
on achievements and how approaches were used.
recommendations on
improvements.
Audience Field/HQ staff, donors, Field/HQ staff and partner
beneficiaries. organizations.

1.2.5 Evaluation criteria and questions
Evaluations will tend to focus on more strategic questions about longer-term performance, processes
and policy, and the quality of delivery.
Box 1.6: Key questions evaluations will often try to answer

• Looking at what the project or organization intended to achieve – was the change or impact
intended achieved? If not, why not?
• Looking at the project plan, organizational strategy, or specific thematic policies - was there a
clear plan/strategy/policy in place? Was this utilized to shape activities? Did the plan/strategy/
policy work? If not, why not?
• Looking at processes - was there an efficient use of resources? What was the opportunity cost
of resource allocation? How sustainable is the way the project or organization works? What are
the implications for the various stakeholders in the way the organization works?
Most evaluations will tend to use the OECD DAC criteria as a framework (see Section 2. 8).
1.2.6 Frequency of evaluations

There is no set frequency for undertaking evaluations; it will depend on the time frame of the
project and the resources available. Most projects tend to have a mid-term and end-of-project
independent evaluation for accountability purposes. The challenge is that these can become
rigid and are not fully utilized to draw out lessons and improve performance. The use of a Post
Evaluation Action Plan (see Toolkit 1) can help in capturing responses to evaluation findings and
recommendations, and mapping out a documented action plan for addressing these.
Increasingly RTEs and AARs are also being used during the life time of the project to facilitate real
time lesson learning.

1.3 Difference between Monitoring & Evaluation
Monitoring is a continuous process and often focuses on what has been achieved against lower
level results (i.e. activities, outputs and to some degree outcomes). Evaluation is undertaken less
frequently at key points in a project cycle and assesses more strategic questions around the quality
of a project and the extent to which higher level results (outcome and impact) have been achieved.
For example, monitoring data may tell us the quantity of food distributed, to how many people, how
it was utilized (Post-Distribution Monitoring – see Toolkit 2), while an evaluation may look at longer
term change, such as trends in malnutrition rates over time.
The purpose and audiences of monitoring and evaluation also differ. Monitoring focuses on providing
information on whether activities are on track for staff and managers, while evaluations will tend to
have a broader scope looking at quality, compliance and policy issues, which can assist field staff
in learning lessons that can feed back into current or future projects and policies, as well as inform
senior management and donors. To facilitate lesson learning, the use of Post-Evaluation Action
Plans (Toolkit 1) is encouraged. These can also be used for meta-evaluations looking at the extent
to which evaluations were utilized for lesson learning.
Both M&E have an important role to play both for accountability purposes, and also to
facilitate learning. Monitoring is also a key source of data for evaluations.
Box 1.7: Differentiating between monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring Evaluation
Objective To provide progress updates against To assess whether longer-term
project indicators, highlighting strategic project/policy/organization
achievements and challenges, and results were achieved effectively,
any variance between targets and efficiently and sustainably, for
what is actually achieved, for project accountability or learning purposes.
improvement.
Methodology Internally collected qualitative Internally/externally facilitated,
and quantitative primary data on information gathering mainly of
changes in project indicators. secondary (including monitoring)
and some primary data.
Timing Continuous process throughout a Project mid-point, end or real time.
project, baseline and endline.
Results Project performance data. Strategic findings and
recommendations.
Audience Mainly field staff and managers, Field/HQ staff, stakeholders,
partners and beneficiaries; also HQ donors, beneficiaries.
and donors.

1.4 Defining a good M&E system
1.4.1 What is an M&E system?
A project M&E system is a combination of processes, tools, templates, staff, equipment and
activities, required to collect, manage, analyze, report and disseminate M&E information.
1.4.2 What is the purpose of an M&E system?

The purpose of a project M&E system is to:
• Guide understanding of progress against project objectives to shape decision-making;

• Measure the project’s effectiveness, efficiency and impact;
• Meet internal and external accountability requirements highlighting the extent to which the
project is delivering the intended results to key stakeholders, particularly beneficiaries; and
• Contribute to learning that informs current and future programming.
1.4.3 Why is an M&E system critical for Results Based (project)

Management?
It is important to firstly define what Results Based Management (RBM) is. It is a way of management
that encourages strong performance and greater accountability, with a clear focus on the
desired results. Managing for results is to manage a project with the focus on achieving the results
intended by and for the people ACF seeks to assist. As such, it is important to plan, manage and
measure what is being achieved through a project with a clear focus on the intended (short, medium
and long term) results, ensuring accountability throughout to key stakeholders (i.e. beneficiaries,
donors, partners, staff, national and local government etc).
M&E is critical for good results based project management as it collects and analyses information
against the project plan, to inform key stakeholders on whether the project is moving towards
or actually achieving its intended results or not. If not, then it allows informed and evidence-
based decisions on what can be changed in the project to refocus on its intended results.
1.4.4 What does an M&E system look like?

A good M&E system should have the following attributes to it:
• Ensure staff (primarily field project staff and managers, and HQ staff), beneficiaries and donors
understanding of progress against objectives, to shape field staff decision-making;
• Facilitate participation from those it seeks to benefit, as well as wider affected populations that
do not directly benefit, so that affected communities buy into and shape a project’s direction by
defining objectives, indicators, means of verification and input into decisions;
• Establish system with a process clearly understood by key stakeholders from the planning
phase;
• Meets internal and external accountability (reporting) requirements; and
• Facilitate lessons learned drawing that can inform current and future programming.
In attaining these attributes, an M&E system should be able to assess progress against all the DAC
criteria, with an emphasis on the following three:
• Efficiency – Measures whether the inputs (money, time, staff, volunteers, materials, equipment)
are appropriate relative to the outputs achieved. To ensure the right resources, in the right place
at the right time to delivery projects, particularly if planed to replicate or scale up activities, it is

important to understand the most efficient use of inputs relative to outputs. For example, the
quantity of seeds distributed relative to the money, time and number of people it took to procure
and distribute them.
• Effectiveness – This measures the extent to which a project is achieving its objectives, including
how relevant activities are meeting beneficiary needs. For example, the extent to which a farmer
was able to produce crops as a result of assistance.
• Impact – This measures mid- to longer-term wider intended and unintended effects of the
project, and whether or not the project made a difference to the problem it sought to address.
For example, the extent to which malnutrition rates fell amongst the target population. Before
deciding to similar projects or activities elsewhere, it is critical to assess whether activities have
had an impact, and if this has been intended or not.
For M&E to be meaningful and effective, it is therefore important to have clear plans against
which to assess progress and results, as well as a clearly planned M&E system. M&E planning
simply means the preparation for the M&E system to function effectively. It should provide sufficient
detail (methodologies, procedures, tools, responsibilities, budget, and resources) for the systematic,
timely, and effective collection, analysis, and use of project information.
A good M&E system can help assess progress against different levels of plans. It can help assess
progress against day-to-day activity plans, against annual operational plans and also against
organisational strategic plans.
1.4.5 What are the core tools of an M&E system?

The following are the core tools of an M&E system, and are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2:
• Project logical framework summarises the project plan and ways of measuring achievements;
• Project M&E plan summarises M&E data to be collected, how, frequency and by whom;
• Project budget summarises project costs including M&E budget resources (depending on
project size, the M&E budget line(s) should account for 5-15% of the total budget);
• Reporting templates detail what needs to be reported on, frequency and to whom;
• Monitoring tools (e.g. questionnaires) detail the methods by which data will be collected.
These will form the key project tools and documents that should be made available to all project
stakeholders.
1.4.6 When in the Project Cycle should preparation for M&E start?
Project staff should start thinking about and preparing for M&E right from the beginning of the
project. While the bulk of M&E activities will be carried out at implementation and evaluation stages
of the project cycle, it is critical that they are planned for as early as possible. This facilitates to:
• Ensure that planning for the results desired shapes the project design;
• Ensure the process of agreeing M&E activities that will measure whether the project is achieving
its objectives is participatory, with communities shaping indicators of success;
• Ensure that M&E activities are appropriately budgeted for and the appropriate staff are put in
place and trained accordingly to undertake these activities.

Figure 3: M&E in the project life cycle - M&E activities cut across the whole life cycle of a
project
PROGRAMMING
Endline, end-
of-project
evaluation Contextual
surveillance
and capitalisation
IDENTIFICATION OF
EVALUATION NEEDS
Identification of
FOLLOW-UP project
Regular activity MONITORING USED TO indicators and
monitoring, Mid-term MAKE DECISIONS ON M&E activities
or Real Time WHERE ADJUSTING
Evaluations PLANS IS REQUIRED
IMPLEMENTATION FORMULATION
Baseline undertaken M&E Plan

at project start FINANCING formation
Source: ACF (2008)
• At programming stage – When assessments are underway to identify overall problems,

constraints, and opportunities, indicators of measurement will start to be determined. As
discussions evolve on what data can be collected to assess the situation, this will form the basis
for monitoring during implementation and evaluation.
• At identification stage – When consultation with intended beneficiaries is underway to analyse
in greater detail the problems they face, options to address these and what desired results
would look like, indicators for monitoring will be shaped further. This should ensure participatory
decisions on what desired results look like (see section 1.5 on participatory systems).
• At formulation stage or planning stage – When project ideas are being developed into project
plans, this is the key stage at which to draw up a full M&E Plan (see section 2.2) alongside
the project logframe. The M&E plan will detail what M&E data needs to be collected, how,
when, with what frequency and by whom. Deciding on indicators should be done with community
and partner participation, allowing them to determine what desired results should look like.
Assumptions/risks identified should also be included in the M&E Plan. Resourcing the M&E
Plan in terms of budget, human resources and equipment, should be agreed on and included in
the project budget (see step 2.3).
• At financing stage – When a project proposal is submitted to the donor, a decision taken
whether to fund the project and modalities of implementation being agreed with the donor,
resourcing plans for M&E activities should also be negotiated.

• At implementation stage – When project implementation has started, regular monitoring in line
with plans should be undertaken in consultation with beneficiaries and stakeholders, to assess
actual progress against planned targets. This allows to determine whether the project is on track
towards achieving its objectives. If necessary, the project is re-oriented to bring it back on track,
or some of its objectives are modified in light of any significant changes in context since its
formulation. Baseline and endline surveys are facilitated; evaluations might also be undertaken
at this stage, e.g. mid-term or real time evaluations, or After Action Reviews, to assess progress
and make any necessary changes in activities.
• At evaluation stage – An end-of-project and/or impact evaluation of the project facilitates to
identify what was achieved and lessons learned. Evaluation findings are used to improve the
design of future projects or programmes (see section 2.8).
1.5 Importance of Participatory M&E Systems

1.5.1 Defining participatory M&E system
Effective participatory development must be built on a process in which power, influence, and
decision making ensure local involvement, rather than only meeting the accountability requirements
of more powerful groups such as donors and host governments. This means that the women,
men, and children affected by an emergency should be involved in the assessment, planning,
implementing, and monitoring & evaluation of projects to ensure it will have the intended
impact.
A participatory M&E system is therefore one in which as many stakeholders as possible

are involved in project monitoring and evaluation, including donors, local government officials,
local staff, partners and other NGOs. Most importantly however, the communities in which a project
is implemented should have a sizeable say in shaping and undertaking M&E activities, as well as
in decision-making around M&E findings. That requires local participation in all stages of the
project cycle (see section 1.4.6):
• Providing beneficiaries and other key stakeholders with timely and adequate information
about ACF and its proposed activities,
• Making sure they have opportunities to voice their opinions on assessing the situation; shaping
project design/plans; identifying what results they want to see and how success of results will be
measured; supporting monitoring of activities; judging the results the project is achieving; and,
participating in decision-making around the direction of the project.
Project planning and decision-making are often pre-determined by relief agencies’ staff, rather than
engaging those they are designed to assist. This is often due to the need to act quickly. However,
basic accountability to beneficiaries should be adhered to as detailed in Box 1.8 below.

Box 1.8: The basic elements of accountability and participation
At a minimum, humanitarian project staff should:
• Provide public information to beneficiaries and other stakeholders on their organization, its
plans, and relief assistance entitlements.
• Conduct ongoing consultation with those assisted. This should occur as soon as possible at the
beginning of a humanitarian relief operation, and continue regularly throughout it. ‘Consultation’
means exchange of information and views between the agency and the beneficiaries of its work.
The exchange will be about:
è
èThe needs and aspirations of beneficiaries
è
èThe project plans of the agency
è
èThe entitlements of beneficiaries
è
èFeedback and reactions from beneficiaries to the agency on plans and expected results
• Establish systematic feedback mechanisms (see Section 2.3.5; Annex 3) that enable:
è
èAgencies to report to beneficiaries on project progress and evolution
è
èBeneficiaries to explain to agencies whether projects are meeting their needs
è
èBeneficiaries to explain to agencies the difference the project has made to their lives
• Respond, adapt, and evolve in response to feedback received, and explain to all stakeholders
the changes made and/or why change was not possible.
Source: Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007) Impact Measurement and Accountability in
Emergencies: The Good Enough Guide.
There are a number of advantages to participatory M&E, disadvantages should also be addressed.
Box 1.9: The advantages and disadvantages of participatory M&E

• Evaluations show that involving people • Can require more time and cost to train and
improves project impact. It empowers them manage local staff and community members,
to analyze and find solutions for their own and slow down activities.
situation (as “active participants” not “passive
• Requires skilled facilitators to ensure that
recipients”).
everyone understands the process and is
• Builds local capacity and ownership to manage equally involved.
and sustain project achievements. Increases
• Can challenge quality of data collected
likelihood of acceptance and utilization of
where vested local interests are involved.
findings.
Data analysis and decision making can be
• Builds collaboration between beneficiaries, dominated by the more powerful voices in
staff and partners. the community (related to gender, ethnic, or
religious factors).
• Reinforces accountability to beneficiaries.
• Demands genuine commitment of local
• Can save money and time in data collection
people and the support of donors, since the
compared to using project staff.
project may not use the traditional indicators
• Provides direct field input to facilitate or formats for reporting findings.
management decision making to execute
corrective actions.

1.5.2 Beneficiary involvement in M&E
Engaging community participation should happen at the earliest possible moment in a
project; it can never be too early but could be too late. Communities struck by emergencies know
what they need and should be engaged in needs assessment from the outset of a project, and
throughout the project cycle as demonstrated below.
Box 1.10: How to involve people throughout the project

Step Details
 1. Before • Determine and clearly state assessment objectives
assessment • Inform the local community and local authorities well before the
assessment takes place
• Include both women and men in the project team
• Make a list of vulnerable groups to be identified during the assessment
• Check what other NGOs have done in that community and get copies
of reports
 2. During • Introduce team members and their roles
assessment • Explain the timeframe for assessment
• Invite representatives of local people to participate
• Create space for individuals or groups to speak openly
• Hold separate discussions and interviews with different groups, for
example: local officials, community groups, men, women, local staff.
• Ask these groups for their opinions on needs and priorities.
• Inform them about any decisions taken.
Note: If it is not possible to consult all groups within the community at one
time, state clearly which groups have been omitted on this occasion and
return to meet them as soon as possible. Write up findings, describing
the methodology and its limitations. Use the analysis for future decision-
making.
 3. During • Give local authorities and community, including the village committee
project design and representatives of affected groups, the findings of the assessment
• Invite representatives of local people to participate in project design
• Explain to people their rights as disaster-affected people
• Enable the village committee to take part in project budgeting
• Check the project design with different groups of beneficiaries
• Design a complaint and response mechanism
 4. During • Invite local community, village committee, and local authorities to take
implementation part in developing criteria for selection of beneficiaries
• Announce the criteria and display them in a public place
• Invite the local community and village committee to participate in
selecting beneficiaries
• Announce the beneficiaries and post the list in a public place
• Announce the feedback and complaint mechanism and encourage
beneficiaries to raise complaints

 5. During • If recruiting additional staff for distribution, advertise openly, e.g. in
distribution newspaper
• Form a distribution committee comprising the village committee,
government officials, and NGO staff
• Consider how distribution will include the most vulnerable, such as
disabled people, elderly people, and other poor or marginalized groups
• Give the local authority and local community a date and location for
distribution in advance where and when safety allows
• List items for distribution and their cost and display this list in advance
in a public place
• Include people living a long way from the village or distribution point
and consider to provide transport costs
• In order to include vulnerable people (e.g. pregnant women) distribute
to them first
• Ensure people know how to register complaints
 6. During • Invite the village committee to take part in the monitoring process
monitoring • Share findings with the village committee and community
Adapted from: ECB (2007) Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies: The Good
Enough Guide; Tool 3
A key aspect of community engagement is informing people about ACF and its mandate to manage
expectations around what ACF can or cannot do. Information should be provided as often as possible
about project plans, entitlements of beneficiaries (in terms of goods and services and accountability),
progress monitored and results noted. It is imperative that information is provided at every
stage of the project cycle, until the project exit strategy is completed.
The extent to which a project actually encourages participation, beneficiary accountability and level
of participation should also be monitored.
1.5.3 Community Participatory Methods

Primarily, it is important to agree with communities the way in which communication and
participation will occur, that the most vulnerable (particularly women, children and the elderly)
are not excluded from communication (particularly during needs assessment and monitoring
stages) and that communication is undertaken consistently.
A number of locally available formal and informal communication channels can be used to provide
information including notice boards, town criers, community meetings and ceremonies, newspapers,
and radio broadcasts in local languages. Staff overseeing communications should be well briefed,
about the role and mandate of ACF and the project.
A number (see Annexes 7, 11-22) of different participatory approaches and tools can be used to
encourage participation. These include:
• Semi-Structured Interviews
• Focus Group Discussions
• Pair-wise Ranking
• Wealth Ranking
• Proportional Piling

• Transect Walk
• Seasonal Calendar
• Venn Diagramming
• Mapping Analysis
• Most Significant Change
• Decision Making Analysis
• Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) Analysis
• Community Meetings and Verbal Reporting
For more information and guidance please consult ACF Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment
Guidelines (2009).
When seeking community participation in a project, it is important to be aware of potential barriers to

the participation of the entire community or specific target groups (e.g. women). Ways of addressing
these should be discussed with the community. Examples are included in Box 1.11.
Box 1.11: Potential barriers to community participation in an ACF project

Potential barriers Potential solutions to address barriers
• Community ability (e.g. time, interest, • Undertake a time analysis to see how much
availability) to participate – e.g. women have time and at what times of the day people can
too many household chores to have the time participate
to participate
• Create project conditions that allow
• Psychosocial impact induced by shock participation from a cross-section of the
(e.g. war or disaster) – e.g. trauma in some community
prevents participation
• Conduct awareness-raising of intentions of
• Awareness in community of participation project and how the community can benefit
benefits or community priorities/interests that
• Work with community on ways in and extent to
differ from project
which women can participate
• Barriers to inclusive gender participation – i.e.
• Work with community on ways in and extent
participation of women
to which marginalized groups can participate
• Barriers to inclusive participation of
• Work through existing community groups
marginalized groups (by age, cast, wealth,
religion etc)
• Communal groups and networks
Adapted from: ACF (2006), Community-Driven Participation in Humanitarian Relief Programming
1.6 Undertaking Monitoring and Evaluation

Who is responsible for overseeing and implementing monitoring depends on the size, structure, and
resources of each project and ACF country programme. Responsibility can vary from:
• M&E and Project Officers or others responsible for project implementation are likely to undertake
monitoring activities (e.g. data collection and analysis);
• Project Managers, Coordinators and Country Directors are then likely to compile monitoring
reports based on the analysis they are given, as well as oversee evaluation management;
• Coordinators and Country Directors are also responsible for overseeing that M&E activities are
undertaken in line with project requirements, and coordinated between projects and partner

organizations.
At the time of writing, dedicated M&E resources are not always made available to all projects and
country programmes. To rectify this it is recommended that:
• Budget and human resources are explicitly allocated for M&E activities, and that these are
included in project activity plans (see step 2.3.3);
• Dedicated people are available to oversee M&E activities, and clear M&E roles and
responsibilities spelled out in M&E plans (see step 2.2).Ideally these people would have strong
M&E technical knowledge to be in a better position to consider what data can be collected,
analyzed and reported on and how. Where capacity is a constraint, an M&E capacity-building
plan should be put in place to build up necessary skills;
• Coordinators and Country Directors should focus on making decisions based on monitoring
data provided, rather than only carry out monitoring activities and allow a separation between
operational and strategic review and decision-making.
1.7 Monitoring Results and Impact Using a Logical Framework

1.7.1 How to assess impact
Most monitoring activities tend to focus on short-term tangible results in the form of process/
activities, countable outputs and sometimes outcome, rather than longer term change.
To truly assess the extent to which a project has contributed to longer term change, it is important
that a project M&E Plan (see section 2.2) emphasizes the use of methodologies that can assess the
extent to which longer term change has been achieved.
Box 1.12: The basic elements of impact measurement

Impact measurement means measuring the changes in people’s lives (outcomes) that result
from a humanitarian project, striking a balance between qualitative and quantitative data. At a
minimum, humanitarian project staff should:
• Establish a basic description (profile) of affected people and related communities.

• Identify desired changes, in negotiation with affected people, as soon as possible.
• Track all project inputs and outputs against desired change.
• Collect and document individual and community perspectives through participatory methods in
order to:
è
èIncrease understanding of what change they desire
è
èHelp establish a baseline and track change.
• Explain methodology and limitations to all stakeholders, honestly, transparently, and objectively.
• Use the information gathered to improve projects regularly and proactively.
Source: ECB (2007) Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies: The Good Enough
Guide
1.7.2 Logical framework as part of an M&E system

A project logical framework (logframe) is an important tool through which to summarise
the project plan, mapping the multiple levels of project objectives and associated results
(measured through indicators) in the short, medium and long terms. It should be derived by
undertaking a “problem tree” analysis that breaks down problems faced by communities to build

them back up into a “solution tree” or logframe.
Indicators are units of measure, that define ways in which to measure whether objectives have
been achieved or not. They are called indicators given that they are often only indicative of whether
an objective has been achieved rather than wholly demonstrating it. Indicators should be SMART
(Specific, Measurable, Achievable/appropriate, Relevant/realistic, and Timebound).
By mapping out the logical flow or chain of results expected (see Annex 23: Designing a Logframe
and Indicators), progress against indicators at each level of the logframe can be monitored or
evaluated.
Box 1.13: Definitions for logframe terminology

Logframe objectives Definitions Objectively Verifiable Indicators Sample Means
(OVI) definitions of Verification
(MoV)
Overall Broad project Impact Indicators measuring E.g. Baseline
Objective objectives in terms of mid to long term and Endline
[Goal] longer-term benefits change in conditions survey (including
to beneficiaries and of the community household
wider benefits to (e.g. % change in interviews &
society. The Overall household food focus group
Objective will not security) discussions)
be achieved by
the project alone;
the project aims to
contribute to it.
Project The benefits to be Outcome Indicators describing E.g. Post-
Purpose received by the medium-term effects Distribution
project beneficiaries of intervention Monitoring
or target group as a outputs. (e.g. % survey;
result of the services change dietary Post-Harvest
provided by the diversity in population Monitoring
programme with access to food survey
or cash)
Results The outputs produced Outputs Indicators describing E.g. Beneficiary
[Outputs] by undertaking a the immediate distribution list;
series of activities. effects of an activity; attendance lists
These are the tangible products,
services delivered goods and services,
to the intended, and other immediate
and it should be changes leading to
possible for project the achievement of
management to be outcomes. Outputs
held accountable for are mainly measured
their delivery. in numbers (e.g.
number of people
or % of population
served).

Activities The tangible goods Process Describing the E.g. Distribution /
and services activities undertaken logistics/ finance
delivered by the (e.g. Amount of cash records
project. (e.g. distributed)
distribution of cash
grants)
It is worth noting that measuring impact can be challenging, can take longer to measure, and it might
not always be possible to attribute an individual project activity to the impact achieved. Increasingly
a multi-sectoral approach to measuring impact is preferred.
Indicators should be measurable, through clear Means of Verification, and should each have a clear
target and baseline against which to measure progress, as exemplified below.
For ACF’s FSL projects, a selection of core indicators which are mandatory and a selection of
optional thematic indicators by project area have been defined to shape logframes (see Annex 23).
Summary of Chapter 1
Chapter Summary
1. Monitoring is the systematic and continuous collection, analysis and utilization of
information on project achievements throughout an intervention. There are many
different types of monitoring including setting of baselines and endlines. A good monitoring
system should be simple, relevant, participatory, analytical, useful and accessible.
2. The purpose of monitoring is to assess the extent of progress against plans, identify
risks or problems and solutions to these; the degree of relevance of a project in meeting
needs; identify learning; and providing data for evaluations.
3. Consideration of M&E activities should begin as early as possible in project assessment

and design stage, to ensure appropriate means of measuring progress, results and quality
are built into the project structure. Necessary steps are covered in Chapter 2.
4. The difference between monitoring and surveillance is that surveillance focuses on

the regular analysis of a multi-sector context of target populations / areas, rather than on
continuous analysis of project changes, as monitoring does.
5. Evaluation is the impartial examination of humanitarian action that occurs at certain

points in time of a project, intended to draw lessons and improve policy and practice,
and enhance accountability. Evaluation is less frequent than monitoring, occurring at a
project’s mid-point, end or real time, and assesses whether project results were achieved
effectively, efficiently and sustainably, and any lessons learned.
6. The purpose of an evaluation can be to assess the extent to which project plans
were achieved (accountability-oriented evaluation) or capture lessons learned that can
be used for decision-making and future projects (learning-oriented evaluations). While
most evaluations seek to achieve both, there should be clarity on the primary purpose so
appropriate methodologies can be used.

7. The difference between evaluation and capitalization is that evaluations are undertaken
for accountability or lesson learning purposes and can be externally or internally driven,
while capitalization focuses on knowledge sharing within an organisation and to actors.
8. A project M&E system is a combination of processes, tools, staff, equipment and activities
used to collect, manage, analyze, report and disseminate M&E data.
9. The purpose of an M&E system is to measure project effectiveness, efficiency and

impact, assess the extent to which it is achieving objectives and relevant in addressing
needs effectively and efficiently, meeting stakeholder accountability requirements.
10. An M&E system contributes to learning to inform current and future programming.
11. The core tools of an M&E system include the project document or proposal; project logframe;
project M&E plan; project budget; reporting templates.
12. A participatory M&E system ensures a sizeable local involvement in reviewing M&E findings
and input into decision making on how a project is altered accordingly.
13. A project logframe summarizes the project plan, mapping the multiple levels of project
objectives, associated results in the short, medium and long terms, risks and assumptions. It
should be derived by undertaking a “problem tree” analysis breaking down problems to build
a “solution tree” or logframe.
14. Indicators are units of measure, used in a logframe, to measure whether project
objectives are achieved, and are the basis for monitoring activities. They should be SMART
(Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timebound).

chapter 2
Step-by-step approach to M&E
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8

Step 3: Establish Project M&E System
Step 5: Agree on Monitoring Data Analysis Process
2
Step 1: Agree on Purpose and Principles of the Project’s M&E System
Step 2: Agree on and Design Core Documents to set up an M&E System
Step 4: Agree on Field Monitoring Data Collection and Management Process
Step 6: Agree on Process for Monitoring Data Utilization and Reporting

Step 7: Review and Revise M&E Plans Based on Progress
Step 8: Agree on Process of Evaluation Management
41
45
51
57
72
75
80
83
95
ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

© ACF Uganda, Erik Engel
40
Chapter objective
The aim of Chapter 2 is the introduction to a step-by-step approach to setting up a project M&E
system and associated tools to facilitate this, including a set of core FSL indicators.
A few aspects to consider ahead of reviewing this section include:
• Thinking about M&E should begin at the identification of needs stage, when a problem
analysis is being undertaken, consultation with beneficiaries is happening and indicators of the
type and scale of the problem are being assessed (see section 1.4.6). Steps 1-3 should be put
in place during project formulation or planning stage and before implementation starts, to ensure
an appropriate M&E system is in place allowing project staff and managers to check that the
project is on track. If project activities started, it is difficult to go back and set up an M&E system.
The project team will not get the full benefit of it and may see it as a burden, while planning for
it will help their ability to deliver.
• The below checklist should then be reviewed at project formulation or planning stage –
i.e. When project ideas are being developed into operational project plans, and beneficiaries
and other stakeholders are being consulted in more depth about project plans.
• All the below steps are applicable to all contexts – emergency, recovery and longer-term
development projects. For projects in emergency contexts, steps will necessarily have to be
covered faster, whereas for recovery projects, those in chronic crises or developmental projects,
more time will be required in planning for and carrying out the steps.
2.1 Step 1: Agree on Purpose and Principles of the Project’s M&E System
Step 1: Agree on purpose and principles of the project’s M&E system
Objective of step: Ensure M&E requirements of stakeholders are covered and there is agreement
on purpose and basic principles of M&E system to be established
Timing: During project proposal design, before starting to plan for monitoring
Activities:
1.1 Agree on the purpose of the project M&E system
1.2 Confirm stakeholder information requirements
1.3 Agree on the extent of stakeholder participation
1.4 Determine M&E milestones (e.g. evaluations)
The following activities should be undertaken in Step 1, at project formulation stage:
2.1.1 Agree on the purpose of the project’s M&E system

As detailed in section 1.4 an M&E system should outline the purpose and approach to M&E in a
project. The purposes of the M&E system will determine its structure. Agreeing on the purpose of
the project M&E system will determine the information it needs to include, the methodologies
used for collection and analysis of data, and the capacity, technical and financial resources
required to deliver it.
The M&E system will largely be determined by the project indicators agreed on, which will be used
to determine the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the project. These and the purpose of the
system should be agreed on and commonly understood as an approach adopted by the project
team, through a workshop involving key project staff. Pre-work will be required to get input from
other stakeholders (see section 2.1.2).

As highlighted in section 1.4 the following should be considered as the purpose of the M&E system:
• Guide understanding of progress against project objectives to shape decision-making;

• Measure project effectiveness, efficiency and impact;
• Meet internal and external accountability requirements highlighting the extent to which the
project delivers the desire to key stakeholders, particularly beneficiaries; and
• Contribute to learning that informs current and future programming.
Agreement should be reached on the extent to which the M&E system should facilitate learning
from the project versus accountability on performance to key stakeholders. This can be agreed
on as a spectrum demonstrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Learning vs. Accountability spectrum
X
Learning Accountability !
Box 2.1: Accountability vs. learning oriented M&E system

If the M&E system is more learning-oriented, If the M&E system is more accountability-
then: oriented then:
• There tends to be a greater focus on qualitative • Focus tends to be on quantitative data to
data, documenting learning and assessing assess progress against logframe targets of
how it has been applied to current work and current project. Reasons for variance against
how it can be applied in future; targets can also facilitate learning;
• Data gathered and analyzed is more likely • Data gathered and analyzed is more likely to
to be used to inform internal stakeholders of be used to inform external stakeholders of
learning; progress against plans;
• Learning will tend to be used to continuously • Plans will tend to be static, so that progress
revise more fluid plans. can be measured against these.
Agreeing on where your priorities are on the spectrum will also determine how to allocate resources.
As well as learning and accountability objectives, other purposes of the M&E system may be to:
• Assess the extent of project coverage and the effect on people excluded from activities;
• Assess the extent to which project benefits can be sustained after activities cease (e.g.
undertaking a 12 months post training survey to assess the extent to which knowledge through
training has been sustained);
• Assess the extent to which the project is in compliance with ACF standards (e.g. ACF
International Charter), sector standards (e.g. Sphere), sector codes (e.g. Red Cross and NGO
Code of Conduct), agreements and contracts signed (e.g. donor requirements and Memoranda
of Understanding), Government regulations and laws and ethical standards.
The information requirements of key project stakeholders (e.g. donors) will also contribute to
shaping the purpose of the M&E system (see Annex 24).
Methods and tools to assess each of these are covered in section 2.1.2.

2.1.2 Confirm stakeholder information requirements
An M&E system will usually serve multiple information needs for multiple stakeholders. In agreeing
on the purpose and structure of the M&E system, it is important to be clear on who the M&E system
is being set up to serve and what their information needs are.
A common misconception is that M&E is done solely to meet the accountability requirements of donors
and Headquarters (HQ). While these stakeholders are indeed important, the key stakeholders
should be the project team and management that can use the information to make evidence-
based decisions on changes required to the project. Partners who are supporting project
implementation are also important, in that M&E analysis can help improve the realization of common
objectives. Beneficiaries as the end users are the other key stakeholder; their information needs and
feedback should be built into the M&E system. Input from a range of local stakeholders will increase
the likelihood of using relevant information to shape the project (see section 1.5).
A stakeholder analysis should typically be undertaken at project planning stage. This will shape
understanding of stakeholder information needs. However, it is recommended that a fuller analysis
of their information requirements is undertaken when planning the M&E system. These can be
captured in a Stakeholder Information Needs Matrix.
2.1.3 Agree on the extent of stakeholder participation in M&E

ACF encourages active stakeholder participation in project formulation, implementation and M&E
activities to ensure relevant programming and accountability (see section 1.5). As detailed above,
project stakeholders should be determined through a stakeholder analysis at the planning stage. Of
these, the most important are the communities that are the intended beneficiaries.
Box 2.2: Community participation in M&E

The ACF Food Security Intervention Principles stipulate that community participation and
reinforcement of local capacities should be applied throughout the programme cycle. This means
that the community should be directly involved in identifying their own needs, defining
the programme objectives, implementing the activities and monitoring and evaluating the
programme. This participation is key to ensuring that the programmes are best adapted and meet
both the needs and expectations of the population.
Source: ACF (2006), Community Participation Approach Manual; ACF (2006), Community-Driven
Participation in Humanitarian Relief Programming
There are however degrees of participation (see Annex 25), with associated resource implications
that will have to be factored into the M&E plan. Greater participation will require more resources
in terms of staff time and budget to carry out such activities. This should not be seen as a
hindrance to participation; rather greater participation is likely to reduce the cost of project corrections
if beneficiaries have not been significantly involved.
Aspects of M&E in which beneficiaries should participate include the below, bearing in mind that
it is imperative to have involved beneficiaries at project assessment and planning stages:

Box 2.3: Example beneficiary participation in M&E activities through project cycle
M&E activity type Means of beneficiary participation in monitoring/research
activities
Logframe and M&E Plan Participatory project planning; Community meetings; Focus group
design, and indicator discussions; Participatory techniques (e.g. Transect Walk, Seasonal
identification Calendar, Mapping, SWOT analysis, Proportional Piling (Annexes
14-16, 18, 21)
Implementation Feedback/complaint mechanism, Individual/Household Survey
monitoring participation; Focus group discussions to review M&E findings;
Participatory techniques for project decision-making (e.g. Decision
Making Analysis - Annex 20)
Review participation Participatory techniques (e.g. Most Significant Change - Annex 19);
Community meetings
Evaluation participation Participatory techniques (e.g. Most Significant Change - Annex 19);
Community meetings
Reporting Verbal reporting (Annex 22); feed M&E findings back to communities
to analyze them and make recommendations; Community meetings
2.1.4 Determine M&E milestones

The ACF Evaluation Policy and Guideline details certain key milestones that should be factored into
the M&E plan and included in the M&E calendar, the key one being that all projects should be
evaluated; smaller ones of less than €400,000 budget once at the end of the project through an
internal evaluation and larger ones of more than €1,000,000 at the mid-point and end-point of the
project, and both as external evaluations.
It is also recommended that After Action Reviews (see Annex 9) should be undertaken after each
emergency intervention to learn lessons from what went well and what went less well.
For monitoring milestones, key minimum requirements include:
• A baseline survey undertaken before project implementation commences;

• An M&E Plan should be put in place before project implementation commences;
• Minimum project monitoring requirements include:
èè Inclusion of beneficiaries in project indicator formation;
èè The use of post-distribution surveys for agricultural, livestock and pisciculture, food
assistance and cash-based interventions;
èè The use of pre- and post training surveys for educational/training/capacity building
activities; post tests should be done immediately after training and 12 months later.
• An endline survey should be undertaken on completion of project implementation.

2.2 Step 2: Agree on and Design Core Documents to set up an M&E System
Step 2: Agree on and design core documents to set up an M&E system
Objective of step: Ensure key M&E documents are in place to establish M&E system
Timing: During the project design and proposal writing stage
Activities:
2.1 Select project indicators and agree on a process to assess progress against them
2.2 Create M&E Plan
2.3 Agree on resources for the M&E plan
2.2.1 Select project indicators and agree on a process to assess

progress against them
An M&E system is built around the project logframe, which summarises plans to address the
problem(s) analysed, objectives to address this/these, and intended results (activities, outputs,
purpose and goal). As highlighted in Chapter 1 (see section 1.7 and Annex 23), logframe indicators
are the means of verification to measure progress against these objectives.
At project planning stage, logframe indicators should be agreed on. Preliminary thinking about
the purpose of a project M&E system should happen at the same time as indicator selection,
so that indicators selected can meet the agreed on purposes (i.e. efficiency, effectiveness, impact).
Good quality logframes and indicators are essential to being able to effectively monitor project
progress. As such, agreement on indicators should be done through a combination of:
• Participatory methods engaging beneficiaries in their articulation of what desired change looks
like for them (see section 1.5);
• Utilising ACF’s core FSL indicators that should be part of the logframe (see Toolkit 3 and Box
2.4 below); and
• Selecting relevant indicators from ACF’s optional thematic indicators.
When determining indicators for an FSL project, these should include ACF’s core FSL
indicators, as well as a selection of other relevant thematic indicators by programme area
(see Toolkit 3). The core indicators are mandatory, while the thematic indicators are intended to
supplement these, depending on the thematic area of work for each project. Project staff can select
which thematic indicators they want to use to supplement the core ones, depending on the project
objectives, activities and context.
NOTE: The core indicators do not need to all be in the Logframe submitted to the donor,
but should be reflected in the monitoring data collection tools to ensure consideration of the
respective indicators to measure the impact of FSL programmes on the supported population.
Core indicators – With an increasing recognition that malnutrition is caused by a combination

of FSL, health, water, sanitation and hygiene, and behavioural/care factors, the core indicators
chosen seek to highlight the links and impacts they have on malnutrition, and to encourage
a more holistic approach to programming while addressing the underlying causes of malnutrition.
ACF’s core organizational aims are of preventing malnutrition, and where required treating it. As
such, any FSL programmes implemented should link to these aims. The purpose of having core
indicators is therefore:

• To ensure that all programmes work towards these common objectives;
• To serve as the standard indicators against which all programmes can report by collecting
some cross-sectional comparative data;
• To encourage greater focus on the medium and longer-term change being brought about by
programming, as opposed to focus solely on activities and outputs.
Box 2.4: ACF core indicators

What are ACF’s core indicators?
ACF has selected six core indicators that give an overview of the factors affecting household FSL
and ultimately malnutrition. The indicators and details about how to measure them are captured
in Toolkit 3; guidance for each indicator and the necessary tool is provided in Annexes 26-33. The
core indicators are mandatory across all FSL projects, and should be collected with the frequency
indicated in Toolkit 3.
Triangulation of the core indicators results is necessary to improve and strengthen the
understanding and influence of each indicator on household food security and malnutrition.
• Dietary Diversity on Household or Individual level measured by Household or Individual

Dietary Diversity Score, or Food Consumption Score (Annexes 26 -28)
• Severity of Household Food Insecurity measured by Household Food Insecurity Access
Scale (HFIAS) (Annex 29)
• Availability of Sufficient Food on Household level measured by Months of Adequate
Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) (Annex 30)
• Risk to malnutrition of children under 5 years of age in the household measured by Mid
Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) (Annex 31)
• Evolution of market prices as measured through Regular Market Price surveys (Annex 32)
• Number of people benefiting from the implemented activity or project (Annex 33)
Thematic indicators – Besides the core indicators, a list of thematic FSL indicators (Toolkit 3) have
been created that focus more specifically on ways of measuring change in each thematic area.
These are optional as they will depend on what specific thematic areas a project is covering and
the local context, hence project staff can select the indicators most appropriate for their objectives,
activities and context.
Selecting from a predetermined list of indicators facilitates standardisation and harmonisation across
projects, while also allowing flexibility to adapt them to be context-specific. The thematic indicators
are by no means complete but are intended to support and inspire the creation of appropriate and
harmonised indicators for project and programme monitoring.

Box 2.5: ACF thematic indicators
What are ACF’s thematic indicators?
As outlined in Toolkit 3, thematic indicators are suggested impact, outcome, output and process/
activity indicators. ACF Staff can select from the list of these indicators, which are most relevant
to their work in their given context. The nine thematic areas covered in the indicators framework
include:
1. Agriculture interventions, including horticulture, agriculture and agro forestry

2. Livestock and Fishery interventions, including pisciculture, cuniculture, apiculture, aquaculture
3. Food assistance, including general food distribution, food vouchers, food for work, etc.
4. Cash based interventions, including cash grants, vouchers, cash for work etc.
5. Education/Training/Capacity Building interventions
6. Disaster Risk Management (DRM) & Natural Resource Management
7. Hunger Safety Net and Social Protection Interventions
8. Income Generating Activities
9. Surveillance/Early Warning System Interventions
For each indicator, agreement will need to be reached on:

• What variables need to be calculated to build up the indicator information (see Toolkit 3);
• What methods of data collection (or Means of Verification) should be used to measure
progress;
• What the frequency of data collection should be for each data set;
• What additional information and considerations are needed to ensure appropriate use of the
given indicators.
A thorough review of the availability of secondary data should be undertaken to see what may be
of use to the project and where it reduces the need for primary data collection. A search should be
conducted online and by asking local and international stakeholders and partners on the ground
for all available information, and contacting experts with special knowledge of the context and
population.
Once indicators and measurement methods have been defined, a more detailed M&E plan can be
developed as key pieces of data and how they will be collected have already been identified.

Box 2.6: Data Selection Criteria
When considering what data to select as part of indicator data, it is important to weigh up this
data against the following criteria:
1. Relevance: Only collect data that meets the project stakeholder information needs, to inform
project management and decision making. Excess information can be costly and make
project management more difficult.
2. Validity: Data use should be able to measure the changes being tracked.
3. Precision & Accuracy: Data should represent the actual population and their situation. Both
are statistical terms that are important when using sampling methods (see section 2.4.3).
4. Coverage & Completeness: Data should cover all study groups of interest.
5. Reliable: Data should be verifiable, producing the same results when used repeatedly to
measure the same thing over time.
6. Comparable: Where possible, especially for quantitative studies, data findings can be
stratified/clustered and compared across different contexts e.g. areas or population groups.
7. Standardized: Related to comparability, data should, when possible, use standard
indicators so they can be consistent and comparable.
8. Realistic: It must be possible within the resources available to collect, analyse and use the
data specified.
9. Timely: Data collection, analysis, and reporting should be timely for its intended use – e.g.
to inform decision about how the project should progress. Accurate information is of little
value if it is too late or infrequent. A compromise between speed, frequency, and accuracy
may be necessary.
10. Ethical: Data collection, as well as analysis and use, should respect the dignity and security
of all stakeholders involved (see Chapter 3).
11. Secondary: When appropriate, data that can be obtained from reliable secondary sources
can save time and money.
12. SMART: Data should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable (or Area-specific), Relevant/
Realistic, Time-bound. Geography and demographics should be defined.
2.2.2 Create M&E plan

An M&E plan is critical for organizing project M&E activities, both so that a project team can
prepare for and execute them in a timely manner to inform programming decisions, having allocated
the appropriate resources for them, but also so that it can be shared with other stakeholders for
coordination purposes.
An M&E plan is based on a project logframe, and details for the project cycle are the following:
• The monitoring information to be collected and analyzed for each indicator;

• The methodologies to be used for data collection and analysis;
• The frequency of data collection and analysis;
• The responsibilities to collect, analyse and report on the data;
• The usage of the data, and in what format it will be distributed and by whom.

The M&E Plan should be linked to an M&E calendar (see Toolkit 4) which gives an overview of when
different monitoring activities (surveys etc.) and evaluations will be undertaken, helping the project
team plan out their resources throughout the year and project duration.
Box 2.7: Reasons for and benefits of having an M&E plan

M&E plans are becoming standard practice in the sector. While they may be perceived as requiring
time and effort to create and being yet another tool, having an M&E Plan can provide the project
team and their stakeholders with a number of benefits:
• Data collection, analysis and reporting is more efficient when thinking has gone into what data
should be collected and how it will be used in a planned way;
• Help project managers plan the use of resources to avoid staff overstretch;
• Avoid over-promising on data and then under-delivering. It is easier to agree what data can and
cannot be collected at the outset of a project rather than finding this out when M&E activities
commence;
• Allows a crosschecking of logframe content to ensure it is realistic;
• Act as a form of knowledge management and transfer. High staff turnover, particularly in
humanitarian contexts mean that new staff can quickly get up to speed on project M&E
requirements;
• Highlight opportunities for coordination of indicators, data gathering and sharing of data collected
across projects/programmes within ACF and with partners that reduces human and financial
resource requirements. Agreement on common indicators, methods, tools and formats reduces
the M&E overload.
• It can require more time and money to correct poor quality data than spending a few more
resources at planning stage to help get more reliable and useful data.
A rough M&E plan should be created during project formulation phase, such that appropriate
resources can be requested through the project proposal. The plan should then be finalized when
funding is agreed on and before a baseline is undertaken and project activities commence. Two
examples are shared in Toolkit 5 and 6.
NOTE: Assumptions are often overlooked but monitoring them (which need to continue to hold
true for objectives to be met) is critical. In this instance, an assumption should be treated like an
indicator and should be included in the M&E Plan.

Examples of different monitoring activities which measure the process and progress of nine thematic
project areas are included below:
Box 2.8: Considering different monitoring activities by project type

The below highlights the kind of monitoring activities being undertaken by project type. These are
covered in greater detail in Toolkit 3 - ACF Core and Thematic Indicators.
Project type Results being assessed Example monitoring
activities
Agriculture and Horticulture Yield/loss; production On-site monitoring; Pre- and
diversity; utilization; ability Post-Harvest Monitoring;
to sustain family needs; Pre- and Post-Distribution
nutritional status; market Monitoring
implications
Livestock and Pisciculture Yield/loss; rearing; species On-site monitoring; Pre- and
diversity and utilization; ability Post-Distribution Monitoring
to sustain family needs;
veterinary and paravet
services; multiplication rates;
disease incidence
Food Assistance Utilization; nutritional status; On-site monitoring; Pre- and
market prices Post-Distribution Monitoring;
Food Basket Monitoring
Cash Based Interventions Supply & demand Market monitoring; cash/
assessment; goods voucher distribution/transfer
availability; seasonality; trade; monitoring; on-site monitoring;
accessibility; competition; Pre- and Post-Distribution
number of traders / Monitoring
customers; utilization
Education / Training / Knowledge, attitude and Pre- and Post-training Survey
Capacity Building behaviour changes; and 12 months follow-up
survey; Attendance records
Disaster Risk (DRM) and Hazard/risk assessment Hazard/risk monitoring; Cost-
Natural Resource (NRM) Benefit Analysis
Management
Hunger Safety Net Storage, coping strategies, Pre- and post-distribution
and Social Protection expenditure pattern Monitoring
Interventions
Surveillance/Early Warning Early alerts issued; Pre- and post-programme
System Interventions recommendations for monitoring
response followed; partners
involved
2.2.3 Agree on resources for the M&E plan

While the full M&E Plan and resources required for it will tend to be fleshed out once project funding
has been agreed on and prior to activities commencing, it is critical to assess approximate overall
resource requirements at the proposal writing stage.
Often M&E activities are not fully undertaken or are undertaken as an after-thought and therefore
their full benefit is not reaped in terms of improved project performance, with this often due to their

not being properly resourced in terms of funds, human resources or capacity. Spending some time
during project proposal writing stage undertaking an initial draft of the M&E Plan and resourcing
required for it will help more effectively prepare for project M&E.
Typically in the humanitarian sector, some 5-15% of the total budget is allocated to M&E costs.
This can be used as a rule of thumb in preparing an M&E budget.
2.3 Step 3: Establish Project M&E System

Step 3: Establish project M&E system
Objective of step: Ensure the appropriate plans, processes and capacity are in place for the
M&E system to function effectively
Timing: After funding agreed but before project implementation commences
Activities:
3.1 Finalize M&E plan agreeing on cross-cutting variables
3.2 Assess the capacity of staff in M&E and determine the extent of external support required
3.3 Agree on budget for M&E
3.4 Train project staff on monitoring
3.5 Set up stakeholder feedback mechanism
2.3.1 Finalize M&E plan agreeing on cross-cutting variables

At this stage, details of the project cycle with the agreed on funding set the course for the preparation
of implementation. The M&E plan initially drafted at project planning stage should also be finalized.
This entails:
• Reviewing the indicators and associated Means of Verification to ensure they remain
relevant and feasible with resources available and, looking at details of specific qualitative and
quantitative techniques (below).
• Agreeing on crosscutting themes that need to be monitored or evaluated as part of the
project. These may include issues pertaining to gender and equality in specific project activities,
HIV/AIDS, or environmental sustainability and climate change (Disaster Risk Management and
Natural Resource Management). Where this is the case, specific indicators reflecting these
should be included (see Toolkit 3).
• Agreeing on the balance between primary and secondary data. Primary data are data
collected directly by the project team, while secondary data are collected by others. Primary
data can be expensive to collect and at times may duplicate data being collected by others.
Secondary data may be cheaper as research costs are not required and can meet project
needs; however, it is not always relevant (e.g. it may cover a different area to that of the project)
nor always reliable. Examples of secondary data that could be used are, FSL assessments
done by FAO/WFP/FEWSnet, price trends captured by the Government, NGOs or the UN, or
demographic statistics available from the local or national authorities.
• Determine what data ACF or partners are already collecting, and what data needs to be
collected. To avoid duplicating research costs when data may already be available, it is
important to dialogue with partners working in the same thematic and geographic areas
of implementation to assess whether data can be shared. This can often be done through
sector coordination meetings, and most usefully by sharing M&E plans with partners.
• Agree on the balance of quantitative and qualitative data required. When finalizing the
M&E plan, it is important to reflect on the value added by collecting different data and whether
the right balance of quantitative and qualitative data has been included. Is the data intended
to assess change over time in scale or quality? If scale, then quantitative data are required. If
quality, then some quantitative data and some qualitative will be required. Is it to look at changes

in opinions? If yes, then a combination of quantitative and qualitative data is required. Is it to
assess whether objectives are being met? If yes, then quantitative data against indicators is
required and qualitative data to substantiate the quality aspect. Is it to look at lessons learned
and what could be done better? If yes then qualitative data (e.g. through an After Action Review -
see Annex 9) is most likely relevant. All of these questions can be answered through quantitative
or qualitative research, or a mix of both (mixed methods).
Quantitative data are often seen as more objective and less biased. Qualitative data tends to focus
on opinions and is sometimes seen as “less scientific” as it is not an exact measurement of what is
being studied and generalisations or comparisons are limited. However, quantitative methods can
be costly, and may not provide explanations on why certain data trends occur.
Box 2.9: Comparing qualitative and quantitative methods

Quantitative Qualitative
Quantitative data refers to the use of numbers Qualitative data refers to using words (e.g. case
(e.g. counting, percentages, ratios, ranking, studies etc.). Qualitative methods use semi-
scores, etc.) and is compiled though structured structured approaches (e.g. interviews, focus
approaches, e.g. surveys, participatory groups, observation), and tend to be more
techniques. Responses are coded or include participatory and encourage greater reflection.
value scales (e.g. a 5-point scale: agrees They tend to focus on opinions, behaviour
strongly, agree slightly, neither agree nor and quality aspects, as well as reasons for
disagree, disagree slightly, disagree strongly or behaviour, causes and effects.
not applicable).
2.3.2 Assess the capacity of staff in M&E and determine the extent of
external support required
A first step to plan for M&E human resources is to determine the available M&E experience within
the project team and other potential participants in the M&E system (e.g. the communities). It
is important to identify any gaps between the project’s M&E needs and available personnel, which
will inform the need for capacity building or outside expertise.
Key questions to facilitate capacity assessments include:
• Is there existing M&E expertise among the project team? Does this match with the M&E needs
of the project?
• Is there technical/advisory M&E support from HQ? If so, what is their availability for the specific
project and where do their skills lie (thematically, qualitative/quantitative)?
• Do the target communities have any experience in M&E?
A capacity assessment should be used to shape the M&E Plan (see Toolkit 4) in terms of determining
M&E roles and responsibilities.
Depending on internal capacity, the extent of external M&E support required should also
be determined. External support would only be employed for specific technical expertise, for
objectivity, to save time, or as a donor requirement. Examples of when external expertise may be
relevant include:
• For project data entry and statistical analysis.

• To undertake specific studies (e.g. household surveys, baseline or endline studies).
• For external, independent, final evaluations.

In looking to bring on staff to undertake M&E responsibilities, key steps include:
• Identify M&E human resource requirements;

• Create a job description;
• Advertise for the position;
• Sort, shortlist, and prescreen applicants;
• Interview the candidates; and
• Hire and orient new staff.
It is important to use tools and mechanisms to manage the time of those involved in M&E,
and assess their performance. The M&E Plan (see Toolkit 4) helps define these roles and the
timeframe. Other tools, such as a Project Human Resource Plan and timesheets (see Toolkit 7)
can help manage staff time. It is also important to look to staff performance management through
relevant HR appraisal tools.
As a rule of thumb and depending on the size of the project some 5 to 15% of the budget
should be allocated for M&E. An M&E focal point for the project should also be defined.
Box 2.10: Checklist for M&E resource planning and allocation

Activities Key tools
• Assess the capacity of staff to realize the • Project Human Resource Plan
M&E system and provide training on M&E
processes. • M&E Capacity Checklist
• Assess extent of external support required. • Training plan
• Agree budget for M&E • M&E Plan

• Project Budget
• M&E budget
2.3.3 Agree on budget for M&E

It is best to begin planning the M&E budget early at project formulation stage, so that
sufficient resources can be factored into project formulation for M&E activities.
The following are five key considerations that should be made when planning the project M&E
budget:
1. Listing all M&E tasks and analyzing responsibilities in the M&E Plan and assess resources,
and associated costs against each.
2. Break down any big items such as baseline surveys and evaluations into their component parts
(see Annex 60). Include any related expenses, e.g. translation, data entry, etc.
3. Budget for human resources, such as permanent international and national staff,
local temporary staff supporting monitoring, external consultants, etc.
4. Budget for any capacity building/training and any tool development.
5. Budget for capital expenditure, such as facility costs, office equipment and supplies, data
collection tools, any travel and lodging, computer hardware and software, printing, publishing,
and disseminating M&E documents, etc.

It is important to remember that primary research is expensive, so the budget will be
determined to a large extent on the tools and sampling methods employed which will in turn
inform the expertise and human resources needed, as well as hardware and software.
Budgets should be exhaustive in order to avoid that lack of funding does hold up the process.
Past practices by ACF or other NGOs in the area can be researched to determine local costs.
2.3.4 Train project staff on monitoring

A full FSL M&E Guideline training package has been developed according to these guidelines. The
guidelines and the training tool kit can serve as the basis for staff and partner training, refreshers
and guidance in costing and planning. For the training materials please contact the ACF HQ FSL
advisors.
2.3.5 Set up stakeholder (beneficiary/staff) feedback mechanism

A feedback mechanism is a particularly important monitoring data collection method/tool. It
is a means by which stakeholders can provide feedback or voice concerns or complaints about ACF
and its work. Feedback mechanisms should be an important part of an overall M&E system
where feasible. In those instances where a full feedback mechanism cannot be implemented (e.g.
given security or resource constraints), at a minimum the following ways of engaging with
beneficiaries should be undertaken:
• Explaining the purpose of monitoring and the types of monitoring that will occur;
• Discussing with beneficiaries how they can engage in monitoring; and
• Discussing with beneficiaries how M&E findings will be fed back to them for discussion on
implications for potential project activity improvements where required.
Feedback mechanisms form an important component of an M&E system in that:
• Feedback reflects perceptions from stakeholders about how a project is running, and is therefore
a key means of monitoring quality and the extent to which a project is addressing
identified needs.
• Feedback can be internal or external. Most importantly, beneficiaries should have the
opportunity to feedback their perceptions of programmes established to assist them and express
any concerns/complaints. However, it is also important for other stakeholders (e.g. project staff,
volunteers, partners and donors) to have the opportunity to provide feedback. Feedback can
therefore be external to the project team and ACF (e.g. a beneficiary feedback mechanism),
or internal (e.g. a staff complaints mechanisms). When setting up a beneficiary complaints
mechanism, it is important to simultaneously allow for staff, volunteers and partner complaints.
Collecting complaints from beneficiaries about those implementing the project requires allowing
implementers a voice as well.
• As feedback can be positive or negative, it is an important means by which to assess what
is and what is not working in a project; aspects working well can be reinforced, while those
working less well can be addressed and valuable lessons learned. At a minimum, any feedback
mechanism should include a complaints mechanism to voice grievances.
• Project staff and community leaders need to be encouraged to view complaints as
opportunities for change and learning rather than threats to be avoided. This takes time. To
mainstream this, complaints received can be included as an indicator of success in project log
frames – demonstrating a commitment to accountability and participation.

Box 2.11: The benefits of a feedback mechanism
A feedback mechanism can provide multiple benefits to support project M&E including:
• Monitoring and evaluating project performance - Feedback from beneficiaries and staff can
provide insight into whether a project is delivering as intended, and if not why not and what
corrective action needs to be taken.
• Anticipate and address potential problems - Timely feedback can identify and respond to
unintended results or potential problems before they escalate into larger problems.
• Identify lessons and solutions - Feedback from people concerned about the project can
identify solutions to problems, corrective action, best practices, and lessons learned.
• Increase accountability and credibility - Due to their vulnerability, recipients of aid typically
have less control and choice over the services they receive. Therefore, stakeholder feedback
is an important way to hold staff responsible and answerable to beneficiaries. Feedback builds
credibility and can be used to report to donors.
• Reinforce morale and ownership - Stakeholders (beneficiaries, staff, volunteers), feel greater
involvement and ownership when consulted. This can build also team spirit.
• Preempt rumors and misunderstandings - It is better to have dissatisfied stakeholders
expressing themselves to ACF rather than to others, such as the media. A feedback mechanism
can rectify minor or unintended mistakes and clarify misunderstandings.
• Save resources - Feedback mechanisms can be cost-effective. Field staff are often approached
by beneficiaries, or potential beneficiaries, wishing to express concerns. This can be time-
consuming and is often not handled in a timely/consistent manner. A feedback mechanism can
help channel such dealings in a more constructive and efficient manner saving time and project
resources to ensure a project is delivering what is required.
• External requirement - Increasingly more donors are requiring the use of a complaint system
as a means of encouraging accountability to beneficiaries.
Feedback mechanisms can take a number of different forms (see Annex 3), a key one of these
being a complaints mechanisms, established specifically to address complaints.
Box 2.12: Complaints mechanisms as a critical part of feedback and monitoring

What is a complaint mechanism? It is an established process for stakeholders to safely voice
their complaints or concerns, with these addressed objectively against a standard set of rules and
principles. It allows accountability to the project and organizational stakeholders, especially the
responsibility to respond to any misconduct (e.g. abuse of power, corruption and issues of sexual
exploitation).
How is a complaint mechanism different from a feedback mechanism? A complaint

mechanism should be part of an overall feedback mechanism, as it is an important source for
monitoring stakeholder perception and satisfaction with programming. However, it is important
to understand that a complaint mechanism is often established as a separate, standalone
organizational procedure (and policy). Any new project should therefore follow such procedures
when being designed.
Source: Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007), Impact Measurement and Accountability in
Emergencies
A project feedback mechanism will need to be developed and operationalised according to

project needs and what is appropriate in the operating context. It is important to begin planning

for a feedback mechanism prior to project implementation, and to involve key stakeholders in
its shaping (i.e. those from who feedback will be asked, and those receiving or reviewing it). The
following steps can be taken to establish a project feedback mechanism:
• Agree on the purpose of the feedback mechanism (FM) – Within the project team, agree on
the purpose of the FM, ensuring those involved understand the objectives of the FM. To help
agree on the purpose of the FM, the team can brainstorm a list of reasons why a FM would be
useful. This can help build staff buy-in. The output: a list of reasons for having a FM.
• Agree on what constitutes valid complaint/feedback – Doing this up front is important to give
staff a sense of where action is likely to be required in the future and where not. To agree on
this, in a group brainstorm a list of the kind of feedback often received. These can be grouped
by theme (e.g. relevant of project to meeting needs, compliance with codes and standards etc.)
and agreement reached on the types of feedback that would require action. It is also helpful to
prioritize the types of feedback agreeing on which ones would require most urgent action. A risk
log (see Toolkit 8) can be used for this exercise. The output: a prioritized list of types of feedback
and suggested response action.
• Agree on which stakeholders can have access to the FM – A number of different stakeholders
are likely to be linked to the project in some way and may provide feedback on it, including:
beneficiaries, potential beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, the host community, volunteers, field
branch, HQ staff, local authorities, partners, donors, other organizations operating in the area.
The project team should agree on which stakeholders should have access to the FM and be
given the opportunity to provide feedback. To do this, brainstorm the list of stakeholders and
agree on who should have the ability to give feedback – this can be done using a stakeholder
analysis that should have been drafted for the project. The output: Stakeholder analysis (see
Toolkit 9).
• Assess the most appropriate channel for communication – There is no standard FM as
ways of communicating and dealing with grievances differ across cultures. FMs can be written
or oral, they can be done directly or through intermediaries, individually or in a group, personally
or anonymously, depending on what is most appropriate to the context.
A number of issues should be considered in designing the most appropriate mechanism:
èè Local culture of communicating and dealing with grievances – Consideration should be

given as to whether this is done in a group or individual context in the community, and who
usually facilitates (e.g. local elders).
èè Literacy levels – Important if a written feedback mechanism is being considered.
èè Type of assistance provided – Depending on the nature of the project different feedback
mechanisms may be more appropriate. For example, if it is a housing project access to
people who can view the issues may be important.
èè Protection – Consideration around issues of protection, particularly for women and
children should be given, in terms of them having access to the feedback mechanisms or
ramifications of participation.
èè Resources available – Depending on the resources available for the project more labor
intensive feedback mechanisms may not be feasible in terms of funds or human resources.
èè Security situation – If the project is being undertaken in an insecure environment, some
feedback mechanisms may not be appropriate for the safety of beneficiaries, volunteers and
staff. Issues of access to beneficiaries may also arise.
èè Organizational operating culture – The presiding culture needs to be one in which there
is commitment to listening to and acting upon feedback. Particularly for internal feedback,
there needs to be an openness to receiving and acting on it.

• Design FM – Agreement will need to be reached on the process for collecting and processing
feedback and who should handle feedback/complaints. Normally two levels of boards are set
up to handle complaints. One to review and handle less sensitive issues and the other for
more sensitive issues; as part of this, agreements should be reached on how complaints should
be processed and addressed and feedback given to complainants. The process agreed on
should be clearly documented so that staff and volunteers are clear on it and if evaluated,
documentation is available. A complaints log (see Toolkit 10) can also be kept to provide
an overview of complaints received and how they were addressed. Ideally this should be
summarized for managers through the quarterly reporting process so that there is higher-level
awareness of the nature of the feedback.
• Agree on how feedback can be submitted: The method by which feedback can be given
should be agreed on so as to be appropriate to the local context. (Examples are outlined in
Annex 3)
• Using a standard feedback/complaint template: A standard template for capturing feedback
should be used (see Annex 3) and made readily available at all the points of feedback.
• Communicating the process to stakeholders: Communication to users is critical for the
effective functioning of any system. An information campaign to intended users should cover:
èè The purpose of the FM
èè The intended users of the FM
èè How the FM operates – how users can provide feedback (through what channels),
frequency of availability of the FM, who is on the frontline facilitating the feedback collection
on behalf of the organization.
èè How feedback will be handled
èè What response can be expected
• Learning from feedback: Statistics around feedback provided should be collected (ideally
through the complaints log – see Toolkit 10), and trends identified (for example, high frequency
of one particular type of feedback suggests action is required). Lessons learned should feed into
decision-making and into readjustment of project plans, as well as into future project planning.
2.4 Step 4: Agree on Field Monitoring Data Collection and Management

Process
Step 4: Agree on field monitoring data collection and management process
Objective of step: Determine the most relevant data to be collected, its source, data collection
method, timing and frequency of collection, the people responsible, and the intended audience and
use of the data, and how data will be systematically and reliably stored, managed and accessed
Timing: During project implementation, before each round of monitoring
Activities:
4.1 Agree on relevant data collection methods/tools
4.2 Determine beneficiary counting
4.3 Agree on sampling requirements
4.4 Interview guide and questionnaire creation
4.5 Recruitment and training of field monitors/data collectors
4.6 Undertake on-site monitoring
4.7 Triangulate data collection sources and methods
4.8 Define data entry and management process

2.4.1 Agree on relevant data collection methods/tools
A list of Data Collection Methods, Types and Sources and when they can be used is summarised
in Annex 4. It is important to agree on what data collection methods and tools will be used well in
advance of the data collection itself, to ensure the appropriate resources, including people with the
appropriate skills are available for data collection. Data collection can be expensive, therefore
planning for it is critical. When data collection methods have been agreed on, these should be
summarized in the M&E Plan.
In general the following checklist for data collection preparation should be considered:
Box 2.13: Checklist for data collection preparation

Check Step Details
box
 1. Confirm • Check that the information being collected is necessary/
intended use sufficient. Collect only what is necessary for project
of data to be management – e.g. reviewing project objectives, indicators,
collected and assumptions.
• Agree on methods, collection time, human resources required
 2. Agree data
and skill sets of data collectors. This can help raise and address
collection tools
any issues with data collection well in advance of collection
commencing.
 3. Check sample
size • Check that the sample size that is necessary to assess change,
is adequate and manageable.
 4. Prepare data • This ensures a consistent and standardised approach to data
collection guide collection amongst those involved.
5. Recruit data • Consider if local people (university students, community

 collectors workers etc.) can be used for data collection.
• Training should focus on data collection purpose, techniques,
6. Train data tools, ethics, culturally appropriate communications and
 collectors practical tips.
7. Communicate • Notify beneficiary population, communicating policies on

 with population confidentiality and participation and addressing any concerns.
Ensure any required permission is obtained from local/national
8. Consider authorities and data collection is in line with any stipulated
 other options regulations and local customs.
to support • Consider local skills and capacities, consider permission for
monitoring, e.g. photography, and how it can be used for documentation and
photography, monitoring.
GIS, self-
evaluation tools,
etc.

Appropriate data collection, for monitoring and evaluation, will include quantitative and qualitative
data. Likely different methods will be used:
• Household interviews
• Semi- structured interviews
• Focus groups discussions
• Observations
Different tools can be employed to support and facilitated the above methods:
• Proportional Piling
• Ranking
• Zoning
• Mapping
• Etc.
Guidance to all of these can be found in the respective annexes and in the ACF FSL Assessment
Guidelines (2009).
2.4.2 Determine beneficiary counting

A key aspect of data management will be beneficiary counting. Each project should keep a clear and
confidential database with a list of direct beneficiaries. To ease data collection on this, it is important
to define who is and who is not a direct beneficiary by project/activity type, such that a standard way
of counting beneficiaries is agreed on. Examples and further explanation are given in Annex 33.
2.4.3 Agree on sampling requirements

Sampling is a critical aspect of planning the collection of primary quantitative data. Most projects
do not have sufficient resources to measure what is occurring across a whole population (e.g. a
census), nor is it usually necessary. Sampling is used to save time and money by collecting data
from a subgroup of the population to make generalizations about the larger population, within a
specified margin of error with a known probability.

Box 2.14: Defining sampling
What is sampling? Sampling is the selection of a representative portion or part of a whole
population or group of things that could be analyzed, to make conclusions about the whole.
For example, when doing a survey, it would be expensive and difficult to survey the entire
population being targeted. Sampling allows the selection of a proportion of that total population
to give representative answers to questions. In designing your sampling methods it is essential
to minimize potential bias (see Chapter 3) and try to accurately represent the whole population.
A key question to always keep in mind is: “Who is being included and who is potentially being
excluded in light of our sampling methodology?” Choices therefore have to be made about:
• What the appropriate method is for selecting samples;

• What the appropriate sample size is (e.g. how many households to sample from the population);
and
• Who should be included in it so it is representative of the whole population (e.g. which households
should be selected).
What is the purpose of sampling? To reduce the time and cost of data collection about a
population by gathering information from a subset of that population.
What is the sample or target population? It is the whole population from which a representative
sample is drawn. Common examples of sample or target populations in FSL surveys include the
entire population of specific geographic areas such as a nation, province, region or town. Refugee
or IDP camps may also be defined as sample populations. The population should be well defined
before determining a sample and undertaking a survey.
What is the sampling frame? It is a list of the total population or units or a geographical
boundary from which a sample is drawn. In strictly controlled refugee camps or villages with
defined boundaries and little in–out migration, camp lists may be exhaustive and provide a useful
sampling frame. In more fluid situations where populations change or are not known, geographic
areas may serve as the sampling frame.
What is a sampling bias? It is the tendency of a sample to exclude some members of the
population and over-represent others. A common source of bias in FSL surveys, especially
in emergency and displacement contexts, is when the sampling frame does not include the
whole sample population. For example, a survey to assess the household food security of IDP
households in a conflict-affected area may be strongly biased if insecure areas where IDPs are
found are not sampled or if only camp-based IDPs are sampled, with those living in host families
left out. In such cases the sample population may need to be reconsidered, or limitations must be
clearly spelled out and interpreted in the report. Again the question to consider is “Who is being
included and who is potentially being excluded in light of the sampling methodology?”
What is the sampling unit? It is the element or unit selected in sampling which the data refers to.
Most food security and livelihoods indicators use ‘households’ as the sampling unit, while nutrition
surveys may use children under 5 years of age especially in anthropometric surveys. Thus, in
collecting data on income, assets and coping strategies to determine household food security,
individual household units are sampled from all the households in the sample population.

What is a control group? It is a group of households with similar needs and vulnerability as the
programme beneficiaries, who are monitored but who are not benefiting or participating in the
programme or project. ACF cannot use control groups to establish a comparative analysis of its
project impacts on the population in need, due to ethics and need to respond to identified needs.
It is hence recommended to use a stepped-wedge sampling method (see Toolkit 11), which
is using several generations and groups of beneficiaries as comparativ e groups to define and
measure impact.
The process of sampling includes the following six steps. For more information and detail consult the
ACF FSL Assessment Guidelines (2009).
1. Formulate objectives and define what needs to be measured – Here agreement should be
reached about what the survey being undertaken hopes to achieve (usually, what progress
a target population has made in reaching project objectives), on which population or area it
should focus, and what themes or issues will be addressed. This will inform what methodology
will be used to address the selected issues. For example, determining a survey on agricultural
knowledge, attitude, and practice/behaviour can assess the extent to which agricultural training
has resulted in changing behaviour.
2. Select the appropriate sampling method – Five different methods are considered below as the
most relevant and appropriate for ACF:
a. Probability sampling: This is also known as ‘random’ or representative sampling, and is

possible when every sampling unit has an equal chance of being selected, the probability
of being selected is known and the selection of the sample is made using random methods.
Both selection in a geographical area and the households or individuals within a given
location should be made randomly. Depending on the context, random sampling tends to
be preferred to non-random methods as it is the only one that theoretically has the potential
to represent the entire sampling frame. Probability sampling is used especially in cases
where quantitative data are collected and statistical analysis is called for. In the food security
and livelihood assessment this would pertain to any use of household questionnaires or
collection of data at the household level, which will be generalized to the larger sample
population. Possible methods include Simple Random Sampling, Systematic Sampling,
Stratified Sampling, Probability Proportional to Size Sampling, Spatial Sampling and
Cluster or Multistage Sampling. The key aspects are covered below:
i. Simple random sampling – The most commonly used sampling technique, this
involves selecting a proportion of the population randomly for interview.
• The pros and cons of this method: Each person thus has an equal probability of
selection, however it is open to error as those selected may not be representative of
the total population. Stratified sampling, discussed below, attempts to overcome this
by using information about the population to choose a more representative sample.
• When this method is appropriate: For ACF projects, this method would apply when
looking at a target population of 200 to 3,000 people, and when you have a complete
and up-to-date list of beneficiaries by location. When the population is scattered and
vulnerability levels within the target area is heterogeneous, cluster sampling can be
used in this case. Quantitative surveying is appropriate here.
ii. Systematic Sampling – This involves arranging the target population according to
some ordering scheme and then selecting elements at regular intervals (e.g. every
10th) through that ordered list. However, the first one should be selected randomly.
After a first household is selected at random, the following households are visited

‘systematically’ using a “sampling interval” determined by dividing the total number of
households by the number needed to give an adequate sample.
• The pros and cons of this method: This method is useful where lists are
unavailable. If the same features apply at periods through the list however, this
method means findings may be unrepresentative of the population.
• When this method is appropriate: This is appropriate where a list of households
exist or where the population is geographically concentrated and dwellings are
arranged in a regular geometric pattern. This is the most common sampling
method used to select households within a cluster, e.g. in a camp, village or urban
context.
For example, if 400 households are on a list, and 20 need to be interviewed, the first step is to
choose the first household at random using a random number table or other method – e.g. a choice
of # 220. Because 400 divided by 20 equals 20, the sampling interval will be 20. Following, select
every 20th household on the list starting from # 220 - 220, 240, 260 etc., continuing at the beginning
of the list when the end is reached until arrived at the target number, 20, and the starting point is
reached.
iii. Stratified sampling – This is relevant where the population can be divided into a
number of distinct categories, strata or zones (e.g. categories such as farmers and
nomads, or livelihood zones such as coastal fishing vs agricultural). Random samples
can then be selected from each category. Quantitative surveying is appropriate here,
as are qualitative methods.
• The pros and cons of this method: Dividing the population into distinct strata
can allow more in-depth analysis into each group which would not be possible
when looking at the population as a whole, and also for the use of different
sampling approaches to each strata depending on what is more appropriate.
Some potential drawbacks however are that identifying strata and implementing
such an approach can increase the cost and complexity of sample selection. If this
approach is used, it is best to have fewer categories for ease of data management.
• When this method is appropriate: When there are distinct categories within
the total population, or when different groups face different conditions. This is
particularly relevant for zoning, where an area should be zoned by livelihood
or other criteria prior to carrying out the sampling, and population data for each
identified zone collected or estimated. The results of the zoning exercise can then
serve as the sampling frame for rapid assessments and surveys intended to be
representative of the local range of livelihoods.
iv. Cluster sampling – This is relevant when a population can be divided up into groups
or “clusters” (e.g. by area). Quantitative surveying and qualitative methods are
appropriate here.
• The pros and cons of this method: This can be a very cost effective method
as a list of all beneficiaries is not required, but the population size of each cluster
(e.g. village) should be known. However if clusters have a bias within them, that
can skew findings.
• When should I use it? When a detailed list of all beneficiaries is unavailable,
when the target population is large (i.e. in ACF project terms, > 3,000), and when
the population is scattered and vulnerability within an area is heterogeneous.

v. Purposeful (non-random) sampling – This is a qualitative method looking at a small
population, where stratification is also common.
• The pros and cons of this method: Can assess majority of a population, if small.
There are potential benefits in terms of ability to undertake trend analysis, as well
as low cost and speed of analysis.
• When this method is appropriate: This is appropriate for smaller, targeted
populations, when quantitative data may not be very useful as statistics are less
reliable for generalizations about the larger population. Also appropriate where
time and/or money are limited, or where the context or M&E objectives are more
appropriate for non-random approaches and triangulation of quantitative findings.
vi. Exhaustive sampling – This is when the whole population is surveyed. For example,
if a project is targeting a whole community, all will be surveyed. Similarly, if a
project focuses on certain groups in a community, then all of those people would be
interviewed for the survey. Quantitative surveying is appropriate here.
• The pros and cons of this method: An assessment can be made of a whole
population and therefore the margin of error on research is reduced. However,
it can be expensive and difficult to survey the entire population being targeted.
• When this method is appropriate: This method is relevant when looking at small
populations (e.g. for ACF projects up to 200 people).
Box 2.15: Sampling methods

Is a detailed What is the
Is population
Sampling method beneficiaries list appropriate total No.
distribution an issue?
required? beneficiaries?
Simple random YES > 200 - < 3,000 with YES, it can be. If
a detailed beneficiary villages are scattered,
list you can only use
this methodology if
vulnerability level
within the target area is
homogeneous.
Stratified NO > 200 without NO. If the population
beneficiary list. is scattered, and
Ok for large numbers vulnerability level of
targeted beneficiaries is
heterogeneous, use this
methodology.
Cluster NO > 200 without NO. If the population
beneficiary list. is scattered, and
Ok for large numbers vulnerability level of
targeted beneficiaries is
heterogeneous, use this
methodology.
Purposeful YES < 50 NO
Exhaustive YES < 200 NO
Source: ACF FSL Assessment Guidelines, 2010

b. Non-probability sampling: is any sampling method in which some units have no chance
of being selected or if the probability of selection is unknown. This is commonly used in
qualitative methodologies including selecting key informant interviews and focus groups,
and involves the selective judgment of the enumerator or community leaders with a high
potential of introducing bias into the results, but is useful for triangulation with other
methods (see section 2.2.11). Purposive, Convenience and Snowball sampling methods
are the most common non-probability sampling methods.
i. Purposive sampling – Here the researchers decide which groups or individuals

to interview. Attempts are made to minimize bias and select a sample which best
represents the population under study. To reduce bias, it can be used with other
random approaches, for example, by agreeing specific number of communities to be
visited, but then selecting respondents within the clusters randomly, or stratification.
ii. Convenience sampling – Here respondents are chosen because they are accessible
or “convenient” and this is therefore a practical solution. However, it can have high
bias due to diverse differences, especially in geographic, political and social isolation,
between individuals and communities which are accessible and those who are not.
iii. Snowball sampling – This resembles the process of taking a small ball of snow and
rolling it to gather more and more snow along the way until it becomes a big ball.
Key informants are often sought out due to their specific knowledge of the situation.
These first informants then point the researcher to other possible informants, who
have experience in the relevant issues. As new informants are found, the snowball
grows.
3. Define the sample frame – Define what the population to be surveyed looks like – for example,
all women, children etc. Pull together the list of every member of the population in the sample
group to be surveying.
4. Determine the sample size – define how many people/households will be selected from the total
population for the survey, such that the results of the survey will be representative of the whole
targeted population, and thus statistically accurate. A sample can be done through a variety of
methods (above) and the sample size is determined in accordance with acceptable margins of
error and confidence. Highlighting these enable the reader to see how representative the results
are of the population considered.
Projects should aim for a 95% level of confidence with a 5% error margin2 for a high level of
accuracy.3
__________________________
2
The margin of error is where your results have an error of no more than X%, while the confidence level is the percentage confidence
in the reliability of the estimate to produce similar results over time. These two determine how accurate your sample and survey
results are - e.g. to achieve 95% confidence with an error of 5%, if the same survey were done 100 times, results would be within
+/- 5% the same as the first time, 95 times out of 100. There are a variety of simple sample size calculators on the internet, e.g.
http://www.dimensionresearch.com/resources/calculators/conf_prop.html (Just enter 95% as your desired confidence level, then
enter your sample size (denominator) for analysis and the result either the % or the numerator and the software will automatically
calculate the confidence interval. An alternate website is: http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sample-calculator.asp
3
For purposive sampling, the accepted rule for household FSL assessments is to sample between 50 and 150 households for each
reporting domain the assessment wishes to draw conclusions on. The goal in selecting the locations to visit within the assessment
area is to capture the diversity. If the area in question is homogeneous this will require visiting fewer sites, while heterogeneous areas
demand visiting more sites. In each site it is optimal to visit around 10 households. For random sampling, it is recommended that
between 150 and 250 households (or other sampling units) are visited for each reporting group to be compared – e.g. geographic
area, livelihood group etc. In cluster sampling approaches, the sample should reach the upper limit of this continuum due to the
design effect incurred in multi-stage sampling. ACF (2010), ACF Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment Guideline

When using a stratified sampling or zoning approach, the following calculation can be used:
n = sample size
n= N N = population
1 + N x e2 e = error level
Source: ACF DRC (2010) Monitoring Guidance Notes
Examples are detailed on the box below:
Box 2.16: Sample sizes with 5% accuracy

Minimum sample
Number of Minimum sample
size for simple
beneficiaries size for cluster
random
<= 500 217 450
<= 1,000 278 570
<= 1,500 306 630
<= 2,000 322 660
<= 3,000 341 690 + 10 % margin of
<= 4,000 350 720 error for each
<= 4,500 384 780

<= 5,000 384 780
<= 10,000 384 780
<= 100,000 384 780
Source: ACF Afghanistan (2010) Household Survey Field Guide for FSL Staff
When presenting survey findings, the accuracy level used should be detailed in the methodology
section of the report, along with the full sampling methodology.
5. Selecting the sample and sample size – The people/households to participate in the survey
should be decided on. This should be done in line with what sampling methodology has been
decided on (see point 2: Select the appropriate sampling method).
6. Address bias – It is important to remember that if sampling procedures cannot be carried

out rigorously, the data gathered will not represent the population as a whole but only the
population surveyed. That needs to be clearly reflected in any final report.
Once sample sizes have been agreed on, the process of data collection commences. This can be
done in a number of different ways addressed below.
2.4.4 Interview guide and questionnaire creation

Questionnaires are required for quantitative data collection in a number of monitoring types, such as
Baselines, Endlines, Post-Distribution Surveys and Post-Test Surveys.
Depending on whether a qualitative or quantitative list of questions is being shaped (e.g. for
interviews/focus groups vs. surveys), there are two main approaches to formulating questions:

1. Structured questions: These are closed and standardized questions to which there is a list
of possible tick-box answers, and tend to be used in sample surveys to answer “what” questions.
Questions will tend to start along the following lines: “Which of the following…?”, “To what extent...?”,
“How many…?”, “Yes or no…?”, “When…?”, etc.
2. Semi-structured questions: These tend to be more open-ended seeking opinions, and will tend
to be used for qualitative research (e.g. focus groups). These tend to be “why” or “how” questions
(e.g. How have your farming practices changed relative to before the training?). As these are in
respondents’ own word, they can be more difficult to aggregate, analyze, interpret, and report.
Structuring of the questionnaire itself will thus vary depending on the purpose and type of data
required. Examples are included for each of the key questionnaire types in Annexes 34 and 35, and
Toolkits 2 and 12. A few rules of thumb to consider for questionnaire creation include:

Box 2.17: Checklist for questionnaire preparation
Check Step Details
Checklist for questionnaire drafting:
 1. Guidance note creation • Questionnaires should be structured to include a
for questionnaire guidance note on how the questionnaire should
be used.
 2. Include warm-up
• Questionnaires should start with some opening
general questions to
questions on general information about the
start questionnaire
respondent(s) to serve as a warm-up for the
discussion.
 3. Avoid leading questions • When writing questions for the questionnaire, avoid
leading questions that suggest an answer.
 4. Ensure coding for all • For a quantitative questionnaire, ensure all answers
answers are appropriately coded (i.e. given a number) to
facilitate analysis.
 5. Create a topic guide • If conducting semi-structured interviews or focus

for interviews and focus groups, create a topic guide to ensure key focus
groups areas are covered and not side-tracked. A topic
guide can include the following questions: i) Warm-
up questions (generally introductory questions about
the household), ii) the key questions that need to be
answered by the interview, iii) wrap-up questions
(e.g. on lessons learned)
 6. Agree what software • Ensure there is agreement on the method/

will be used for data software to be used to create the questionnaire
capture and entry and capture data; i.e in Sphinx, Word, Excel, MS
Access, SPSS.
 7. Ensure staff handling • Ensure those who will be collecting, inputting

data have appropriate and analysing data have the appropriate skills or
skills and training training to do the task. Many resources are wasted
when this is not factored into planning and staff are
then unable or do not have time to analyse data.
 8. Ensure any translations • Where translations are required, ensure they
are done well and on are done on time for all relevant materials (e.g.
time questionnaires, support materials, training materials
for enumerators etc) and that resources are factored
in for translation back into the language in which the
questionnaire was developed. Sufficient time and
able translators need to be allocated to the work to
ensure apt translation and avoid unusable data.

Checklist for questionnaire review and validation:
 1. Review questionnaire • Several team members should carefully review the
questionnaire in all languages used (as a “fresh”
pair of eyes reviewing it), and edit to ensure questions
are clear, relevant to the information sought and to
the local context.
 2. Review translations
• Ensure translations of the questionnaire match
against original
with the original information-seeking intent.
questionnaire
 3. Keep to standardized • Avoid adding new questions or sizeable changes,

questionnaires as more standardized questionnaires that can be
compared across regions are more useful.
 4. Check correct version • Ensure version-control so that all versions of the

is used questionnaire and question numbers match, and the
final version is being used.
 5. Validate questionnaire • Put aside a week or so for field test and coordinator
validation of the questionnaire.
 6. Create interview • Ensure that an interview protocol card explaining

protocol card respondent rights has been created and
disseminated to all data collectors.
To ensure respondents are at ease with the interview process and understand their rights, use of an
Interview Protocol Card (see below) by data collectors helps put respondents at ease.
Box 2.18: Creating an Interview Protocol Card

Your rights as a respondent
1. You have the right not to be interviewed or to terminate the interview at any time.
2. You have the right not to answer any question.
3. Nothing you say will be attributed to you directly or indirectly without your permission.
Source: Adapted from: Buchanan-Smith, M. & Cosgrave, J. (2010) Evaluation of Humanitarian

Action, ALNAP

2.4.5 Recruitment and training of field monitors/data collectors
In preparing to recruitment data collectors4 the following four steps should be taken (see Annex 36
for more details):
1. Determine the number of data collectors required
2. Agree on desired skills for the data collectors
3. Agree on desired skills for supervisors
4. Develop job description for the data collectors
2.4.6 Undertake on-site monitoring

On-site monitoring is key to day-to-day assessment around whether the project is running effectively,
efficiently and on-track.
Box 2.19: Undertaking on-site monitoring

What is on-site monitoring? This entails the live observation of activities while they are being
undertaken, and beneficiaries are being engaged in these.
What is the purpose of on-site monitoring? The purpose of on-site monitoring either at
distribution points or training locations is to check on the distribution process and what beneficiaries
are actually receiving. By monitoring project activities their implementation be checked to ensure
it is on schedule, that the right things are being distributed to the right people, and that quality
procedures are in place. Observing activities in action can highlight ways in which operational and
project procedures can be improved.
What does on-site monitoring entail? Particular attention should be paid to (see Toolkit 12):
• Management of commodities: type, quantity, quality, amount distributed, losses etc.

• Management of cash: quantity, amount distributed, losses etc.
• Beneficiaries: number, gender, age breakdown, appropriate targeting etc.
• Performance of staff and partners: in line with operating procedures, MOUs etc.
• Quality of training: in line with objectives, comprehension, learning by doing, attendance etc.
• Adherence to cross-cutting issues: gender, environment, HIV/AIDS etc.
• Relationships with key local stakeholders: communities, partners, authorities etc.
For specific approaches to on-site monitoring see the On-Site Monitoring Checklist (see Toolkit 12).
2.4.7 Triangulate data collection sources and methods

Triangulation is the process of using different sources and/or methods for data collection,
to reduce bias and crosscheck data for validity and reliability. Triangulation can include a
combination of primary and secondary sources, qualitative and quantitative methods, or participatory
and non-participatory techniques.
________________________
4
Data collectors may also be called field monitors, interviewers, enumerators or surveyors.

Box 2.20: Explaining triangulation
What is triangulation? It is the key technique to ensure accuracy and reliability in qualitative
and mixed method research. Essentially, triangulation consists of looking at data from different
sources to see whether they support the same interpretation and broaden the understanding and
perspective.
How is triangulation undertaken? It can be based on the following:

• Method triangulation: Comparing data generated by different research methods (e.g.
comparing observations with group interviews)
• Source triangulation: Comparing information from different key-informants, e.g. women and
men, field and HQ, etc.
• Researcher triangulation: Comparing information from different researchers.
• Analytical triangulation: Comparing the results of different analytical techniques to see
how they compare, for example, you could compare how the number of references in official
documents to a particular issue varies, against how the level of funding for that issue varies.
2.4.8 Define data entry and management process

Data entry and management are critical aspects of the M&E system, linking data collection with its
analysis and use. They require a clear set of procedures around skills, templates and equipment, to
reliably enter, clean, store, manage, and access M&E data. Data management systems will vary by
project needs, size, and complexity. Once they have been agreed on, those undertaking data entry
should be trained on how to enter data correctly. Five key considerations for planning a project’s
data management system are:
1. Agree on data format: The format in which data are entered/recorded, stored and reported in
is a key aspect of overall data management. Standardized formats and templates improve data
organization and storage. Data are likely to be stored in many forms, which largely include:
• Numerical data – Should be captured in spreadsheets, databases (see below and Toolkit 13)
and where relevant for survey data in Sphinx;
• Descriptive data (e.g. narrative reports, checklists, forms) – Should be saved with a full
descriptive title, date and version as Word documents;
• Visual data (e.g. pictures, videos, graphs, maps, diagrams) – Should be saved with
information on the subject matter, location, source and date in the document title;
• Audio data (e.g. recordings of interviews, etc) – Should be saved with information on the
subject matter, location, source and date in the document title.
When data are entered into templates/databases, it is important that all those undertaking data entry
use the same format and coding structure. There should be supervision and random spot-checking
of quality during data entry. To ensure ease of storage and use, all data should be clearly labelled
with the subject matter, date of creation, version number and where relevant location and
source. This also applies for physical data (such as written forms stored in office filing cabinets).
2. Agree on data organization conventions: A project should have a filing and knowledge
management convention, where information should be categorized electronically and physically
for ease of access and use. This can be done in a number of ways, so agreement should be
reached based on what is most appropriate for the project:

• Chronologically (e.g. day, month, quarter, year);
• By location;
• By content or focus area (e.g. different objectives of a project), by format, (e.g. project
reports, donor reports, technical documents); and
• By version: Versions should be systematically labelled by date and/or version number (e.g.
1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, etc.). Final versions that will not be changed should be marked final.
3. Agree on data access: Data should be available to intended users and secure from unauthorized
use. Agreement will need to be reached on the following issues for data availability include data:
• User access – Who should have permission to access and access to the data and if so how
(e.g. shared computer drives, folders, intranets, online shared access through DropBox or
other technologies). Data should be classified security purposes, (e.g. confidential, internal,
public etc);
• Key word searches – Consider how data can be searched and found (e.g. by keywords);
• Archiving – Consider how data will be archived and retrieved for future use;
• Dissemination – In line with the M&E plan, agreement should have been reached on which
stakeholders should have access to what data and how (see Section 2.6).
4. Agree on the data quality control procedures: It is important to identify procedures for checking
and cleaning data entered, and how to treat missing data. In data management, poor data can
be the result of the miss-entered (mistyped) data, duplicate data entries, inconsistent data, and
accidental deletion and loss of data. These problems are particularly common with quantitative
data collection for statistical analysis.
5. Responsibility and accountability of data entry and management: It is important to identify

who will be responsible for developing and/or maintaining of the data management system,
assisting team members in its use, and enforcing any data management protocols. For
confidential data, clear lines of authorization should be in place.
Quantitative data tends to be the most challenging to manage. To facilitate tracking progress
against indicators agreed on in a logframe, a project can establish a database. The database
serves as a useful data management tool that can ease reporting amongst other things. Databases
templates are included in Toolkit 13.
This Indicator Progress Database template (see Toolkit 13) is intended to mirror the logframe
and M&E Plan so it facilitates data collection against all project indicators for key periods
in time (monthly, annually and for the lifespan of the project). Its purpose is to act as a means
of storing all the data relating to progress against a project’s plan, in one place for ease of
review and reporting. That means that it does not just capture data relating to activities, but also
to higher levels on indicators (outputs, outcomes and impact). Data from this can be copied and
pasted into the ACF monthly Activity Progress Report (APR) for reporting purposes (see Toolkit 14).
A summary of the sections of the database is included in Annex 37.
Understanding variance is key to project management and an important part of the data management
process for a project.

Box 2.21: Explaining variance against targets
What is variance? Variance is the difference between targets set in plans and actual results.
Why is it important to track and explain variance against targets?

1. Tracking progress against targets helps to highlight if a project is on track in the timeframe
planned. If actual performance is less or greater than targets, identifying the variance shows how
big the gap is, why there is a gap and what needs to be done to correct it;
2. Tracking variance can highlight how realistic expected results are;
3. Explaining variance between targets and actuals can help shape resource planning and inform
decision making;
4. Explaining why there is a variance can help capture lessons learned to feed into plan revision
or future planning;
5. Paying attention to variance encourages critical analysis of project performance.
A rule of thumb is that if variance is greater than 10% this should be explained in project
reporting.
2.5 Step 5: Agree on Monitoring Data Analysis Process

Step 5: Agree on monitoring data analysis process
Objective of step: Ensure data are being properly analyses and key recommendations and
actions agreed
Timing: During project implementation
Activities:
5.1 Agree on data analysis plan
5.2 Prepare the data for analysis
5.3 Assess key findings and trends
5.4 Identify challenges and solutions
5.5 Agree on recommendations and action planning
Data analysis is the process of converting raw data that has been collected into usable information
that can support decision-making around project management. Data analysis involves looking
for trends, clusters or other relationships between different types of data, assessing
performance against plans and targets, forming conclusions, anticipating problems, and
identifying solutions and best practices for decision making and organizational learning.
2.5.1 Agree on data analysis plan

A clear plan for data analysis can largely be expressed in the M&E Plan, but may also need further
elaboration about the purpose of the analysis, timeframe, methods, tools/templates, allocation
and responsibilities. Data analysis is integrally linked to the data reporting and dissemination. The
following key steps should be taken when planning for data analysis:
• Agree on the purpose of data analysis: What and how data are analysed is determined by
project objectives and indicators, as well as the target audience and their information needs.
Data analysis should therefore be appropriate to objectives in the project logframe and M&E
plan. For example:
èè Analysis of output indicators is used for project monitoring to determine if activities are
occurring according to plans and budget. Depending on the data, analysis should thus occur
on a regular basis (e.g. weekly, monthly and quarterly) to identify any variance or deviations
from targets. Programme managers can then look for alternative solutions.
èè Analysis of outcome indicators is typically used to determine medium and long term impact or

changes – e.g. in people’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices (behaviour). By their nature,
they require less frequent analysis, but will be the kind of information that less operational
audiences (e.g. senior managers, donors, partners) will look for.
• Agree on the frequency of data analysis: This will depend largely on the frequency of data
collection, and information needs of users, reflected by the reporting timetable. Data analysis
can coincide with key reporting dates, to feed into reports, but it is important to remember that it
is time consuming and sufficient time should therefore be allocated.
• Responsibility for data analysis: Analysis of monitoring data may be done by data collectors
or by the Project Manager. Ideally there should also be an opportunity to discuss and analyse
the data findings in a wider group including other project staff and managers, and potentially
also partners, beneficiaries and other stakeholders. A wider discussion can bring multiple
perspectives, help crosscheck data accuracy, and improve critical reflection, learning, and
utilisation of information. A problem, or solution, can look different from the perspective of HQ,
field office and communities. Stakeholder involvement in analysis helps build ownership of M&E
data, acceptance and credibility.
• Format for data analysis: As with data management, the format in which data are captured will
either facilitate or hinder analysis. Consideration should be given to whether the format used will
allow for the full analysis required or if data has to be exported into other formats.
2.5.2 Prepare the data for analysis
Data preparation: Sometimes also called data “reduction” or “organization,” this involves cleaning
the data and getting it into a more usable form for analysis, including:
• Editing qualitative data by summarizing narratives into main ideas and highlighting critical
points. Key points can then be used and clustered or coded into key themes or trends for
analysis.
• Coding quantitative data in line with the initial questionnaires, cleaning and collating it to look
for trends, while cross-checking the data for accuracy and consistency.
There are six steps for preparing quantitative data for analysis:
1. Nominate a person and set a procedure to ensure the quality of data entry
2. Enter numerical variables in spreadsheet or database.
3. Enter continuous variable data on spreadsheets.
4. Code and label variables.
5. Deal with missing values.
6. Ensure Data Cleaning Methods
Data organisation can begin during the data collection. The format by which data are recorded and
reported can play an important role in organizing data and reinforcing critical analysis. For example,
an indicator database can be designed to report not only the actual indicator performance, but
also its planned target and the percentage of target achieved. This reinforces critical reflection on
variance.
2.5.3 Assess key findings and trends

Data analysis can be descriptive or interpretive, with descriptive analysis informing interpretative.
Descriptive analysis involves describing key findings (e.g. conditions, states, and circumstances)
from the data, while interpretive analysis helps explain findings (e.g. causal relationships, trends
etc). Descriptive analysis focuses on what happened, while interpretive analysis seeks to explain
why it happened, and what might be the causes. The box below highlights some key prompt
questions to aid analysis.

Box 2.22: Prompt questions for descriptive and interpretive analysis
Descriptive analysis prompts Interpretive analysis prompts
• Are there any trends/clusters in the data? • If yes, why?
• Are there similarities in trends from different data sets? • If yes, why?
• Is the information showing what was expected to see
(logframes objectives)? • If not, why not? Is there anything
surprising? If so, why?
• Is there any variance to objective targets?
• Are any changes in assumptions/risks identified?
• If yes, why? How can it be addressed?
A few key points to remember when undertaking data analysis:
• Always check if any additional information or analysis is required to clarify a finding;

• When analysing data, focus on the objective findings, rather than basing analysis on personal
opinions. Any assumptions (hypothesis/limitations) in data analysis should be recognized and
documented;
• Compare findings to project objectives, looking at: planned versus actual to explain variance;
demographic comparisons (such as data disaggregated by gender, age, wealth group or
ethnicity) to support specific vulnerable groups, for example in a livelihoods project; geographic
comparisons, for example to compare findings between livelihood zones;
• Where relevant compare findings to other monitoring surveys or evaluations to triangulate
data findings;
• Use summary tables, graphs, diagrams, and other visual aids to help organize and describe key
trends/findings – these can also be used later for data presentation. Data presentation should
be such as to effectively highlight key findings and conclusions. For example, if looking
at progress against plans, a traffic light approach can be used to highlight indicators as green,
amber or red, if they are on track, slightly delayed but expected to meet targets or will definitely
not meet targets.
• Consider if data needs to be weighted or adapted for standard errors;
• Consider if from the sample size, inferences or generalizations can be made about the wider
population.
• Data collected should be validated by different sources and/or methods before being deemed
“fact.”
2.5.4 Identify challenges and solutions
Where data analysis has highlighted challenges, such as a sizeable variance between target and
actual achievements, it is important to analyse why such challenges are occurring so that
recommendations can be made for solutions.
2.5.5 Agree on recommendations and action planning

Recommendations and action planning are where data are used as an evidence base or
justification for proposed actions.
There should be a clear rationale for proposed actions, linking evidence from findings to
recommendations. Recommendations should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant, and time-bound), and specific stakeholders identified to take them forward. It is also
useful to appoint one stakeholder (usually the project manager) who will follow up with all
others to ensure that actions have been taken forward.

Action for the project can be captured in a summary Action Log (see Toolkit 15) to ensure they are
taken forward.
2.6 Step 6: Agree on Process for Monitoring Data Utilization and Reporting
Step 6: Agree on process for monitoring data utilization and reporting
Objective of step: Feeding the analysis into reports to the relevant stakeholders to inform day-
to-day and longer-term decision-making and management
Timing: Agree general guidance at project planning phase and finalise details when project
implementation starts
Activities:
6.1 Agree on reporting needs
6.2 Agree on reporting frequency
6.3 Confirm reporting formats
6.4 Agree on reporting responsibilities
6.5 Plan for information utilization
6.6 Facilitate decision making and planning
6.7 Facilitate learning
2.6.1 Agree on reporting needs

Reporting is a critical part of M&E because no matter how well data may be collected and analysed,
if it is not well presented or reported it undermines the ultimate aim of facilitating decision-making
and learning. Reports should be prepared for a specific purpose/audience. The key activities to
prepare for reporting therefore include:
Box 2.23: Checklist in planning for reporting and data utilization

• Agree reporting needs Reporting Plan (Toolkit 16)
Stakeholder information needs Matrix (Annex
• Agree reporting frequency
24)
• Confirm reporting formats APRs (Toolkit 14)
• Agree reporting responsibilities M&E Plan (Toolkit 4)
Decision log (Toolkit 17)
• Plan for information utilization Action log (Toolkit 15)
• Facilitate decision making and planning Learning log (Toolkit 18)
• Facilitate learning
Reporting is a resource-intensive process, and it is critical to carefully plan for it so that it can be
used to best facilitate project decision-making. Reporting content should be limited only to what
is necessary and sufficient for its intended purpose. However, sufficient context or situation
analysis should be included and analysis made to facilitate decision-making.

Box 2.24: What is the purpose of reporting?
Reporting is a key part of the M&E system as it:
• Communicates to key project stakeholders whether a project is on track against plans;

• Highlights progress and achievements/results against plans for project staff and management;
• Highlights how needs are being addressed and what results have been seen;
• Highlights risks/blockages to help managers decide on mitigating measures required;
• Contributes to transparency and accountability tso all stakeholders;
• Provides data that can be used for communication/visibility/resource mobilization and relationship
management with communities, authorities, partners and the media;
• Should encourage and increase in two-way communication up and down chain; and
• Captures learning from projects.
As highlighted in Section 1.4, a Stakeholder Information Needs Matrix (see Annex 24) can be used
to assess the information and therefore reporting needs of key stakeholders, to ensure the format,
frequency and content of reporting meets these needs.
A Reporting Plan (see Toolkit 16) can be used to summarize all reports compiled by the project,
country programme or organisation, to allow stakeholders to see what reporting is undertaken at
a glance. However, the team may prefer to include a reporting schedule as part of the M&E plan
calendar (see Toolkit 4).
A key aspect is differentiating between external and internal reporting needs. While external
reporting is important for accountability, internal reporting plays a more crucial role in actual
project implementation and lesson learning to facilitate decision-making. Particular attention
should be given to internal project monitoring through APRs and survey findings, as these will
provide information for external reporting.
2.6.2 Agree on reporting frequency

Reporting frequency should reflect the information flow and decision-making needs of project
stakeholders. For example, a fast-changing humanitarian context will require more frequent reporting
and a weekly and monthly basis to different stakeholders, while a longer-term developmental
context may only require quarterly, bi-annual or even annual reporting. Some key points to consider
in planning the reporting frequency include:
• Frequency should be based upon the informational needs of the intended audience, and
timed to inform key project planning, decision-making, and accountability events;
• Frequency will be influenced by the complexity and cost of data collection. For instance,
it is much easier and affordable to report on a process indicator for the number of workshops
participants, than an outcome indicator that measures behavioral change in survey which
requires more time and resources.
• Data may be collected regularly, but not everything needs to be reported to everyone all the
time. For example:
èè A Security Officer might want security reports on a daily basis in a conflict setting;
èè A Project Manager may want weekly reports on process indicators to monitor activity
implementation;
èè A Coordinator may want monthly reports on outputs delivered to check they are on track;

èè Senior management may want quarterly reports on outcome indicators of longer-term
change; and
èè Donors may want annual reports on project impact.
2.6.3 Confirm reporting formats

Once the reporting audience (who), purpose (why), and timing (when) has been identified, it is then
important to determine the key reporting formats that are most appropriate for the intended
user. This can vary from written documents to visuals. Either way, some documentation by way of
capturing progress will be required, in a number of potential formats.
Box 2.25: Summary of reporting formats

Report type Frequency Audience Purpose
Situation reports (e.g. Weekly Project Manager (PM), Monitor context
PM planning report) Coordinator changes to facilitate
decision-making
Activity Progress Monthly PM, Coordinator, HoM, HQ Monitor activity
Reports (APRs) advisors & managers progress to facilitate
decision-making
Monitoring survey Depending on Project Team, Coordinator, Monitor project
findings reports M&E Plan HoM, HQ advisors, progress and results
Communities, Partners, seen to facilitate
Local authorities, Donors decision-making
Evaluation reports Mid/end Project Team, Coordinator, Assess impact; learn
project HoM, HQ advisors lessons for current/
& management, future projects
Communities, Partners,
Local authorities, Donors
Capitalization reports End project Project Team, Coordinator, Learn lessons for
HoM, HQ advisors & current/future projects
management, Partners
Annual reports Annual Donors Accountability on
resources
Donor reports Annual / twice Donors Accountability on
yearly achievement of plans
and resource use
It is important that report formats and content are appropriate to the needs of intended users, as
presentation can play a key role in how well it is understood and put to use. For example,
reports with graphs and charts may work well with project management, participatory discussion
meetings with field staff, community (visual) mapping for beneficiaries, and a glossy report or
website for donors. Reporting should be translated in the relevant language.

Box 2.26: Tips for effective report writing
• Time planning – Plan the report writing beforehand, and allowing sufficient time.
• Use an executive summary to summarize the overall project status and highlight any key
issues/actions to be addressed.
• Explain reasons for any variance between targets and actual, detailing what the lessons
learned have been and if any actions are required.
• Identify and summarize specific actions required in response to the report findings and
recommendations, and the respective people responsible and timeframe.
• Be clear and concise, avoiding long sentences and jargon, spell out any acronyms.
• Explain the importance of any data included – Do not leave the reader to do the analysis.
• Use formatting, such as bold or underline to highlight key points.
• Use graphics, photos, quotations, and examples to highlight or explain information.
• Be accurate, balanced, and impartial.
• Ensure coherence throughout the report, and avoid contradiction between different sections.
• Translate reports to the relevant language(s), e.g. for beneficiaries, stakeholders, donors.
2.6.4 Agree on reporting responsibilities

It is important to specifically identify the people who will be responsible for each report. This can
be the same person identified in the M&E Plan (see section 2.4) who analyses the data; it is most
likely to be the Project Manager or Coordinator, or other for small country programmes, e.g. in link
with HQ advisors.
Consideration should also be given to who is responsible for presenting M&E data at forums
such as community meetings, conference calls with HQ, donor meetings, coordination meetings
etc. It does not need to include everyone involved in the reporting process, but the key person with
overall responsibility for each reporting product.
While it is useful to involve a wider group of people in the report writing process, one focal person
should ultimately be responsible.
2.6.5 Plan for information utilization

The overall purpose of the M&E system is to provide useful information. Therefore, information
utilization should not be an afterthought, but a central planning consideration! For this
reason, the informational need of stakeholders introduced in the initial M&E planning step, has been
a reoccurring topic throughout all M&E planning steps.

Box 2.27: Considerations to ensure effective information utilization
Below are the different ways in which information might be utilized:
• Project implementation – Inform decisions to guide and improve ongoing project implementation.
• Learning and knowledge sharing – Advance organisational learning for current and future
programming.
• Accountability and compliance – Demonstrate how and what work has been completed, and
whether it was according to specific standards or donor requirements.
• Celebrate achievements and advocacy – Highlight accomplishments and impact, and
advocate for further change.
2.6.6 Facilitate decision making and planning

Decision making and planning are at the heart of data utilization. It is ultimately up to the user/
decision-maker to decide when and how to put it to use. The more effectively data are presented,
the greater the likelihood of facilitating utilization. This is where M&E planning merges with project
management, and where standard project management tools are useful to facilitate action.
Procedures for documenting and responding to information findings and recommendations

should be built into the Project Cycle Management system. At the project level, this can take
the form of:
• A decision log to keep a record of key project decisions made (see Toolkit 17). The value
of this is that staff can go back to this to check that all decisions are followed through with, that
they are recorded for institutional memory and if a disagreement arises over why a decision was
made the log can be referred to for the reasoning; something which can also be useful for audit
purposes.
• An action log kept by Project Managers to ensure M&E findings and decisions made are
followed up and acted on (see Toolkit 15). Such a mechanism should specifically explain what
actions will be taken, including their timeframe and responsibilities; it should also explain why
any recommendation or identified issue may not be addressed. Follow-up should be systematic
and monitored and reported on in a reliable, timely, and open manner so that the project team
are kept updated. One system that can be used to highlight priority action areas is the use of
“traffic lights”, where actions are marked as green, amber or red. Green highlights actions that
are on track, amber marks those that might not be achieved in the time allocated and red marks
those that are static or delayed and must urgently be addressed.
• Recording of strategic decisions, the reasons for them and related actions can also be useful
in a project lessons learned log, to inform longer-term strategic decision-making and act as a
source of knowledge management for future projects to refer to (see Toolkit 18).
Decision and action logs are also useful to record explicit responses of project issues identified in
M&E reports and recommended actions.
2.6.7 Facilitate learning

M&E has a key role to play in facilitating learning, demonstrated by the connecting of M&E
findings back into project planning in the PCM (see figure 3 in section 1.4.6). However, this will not
be realized unless what is learned is documented and reflected on to inform future project
and organisational planning.

2.7 Step 7: Review and Revise M&E Plans Based on Progress
Step 7: Review and revise M&E plans based on progress
Objective of step: As the project proceeds, revise plans where required to reflect actual progress
and lessons learned
Timing: During project implementation
Activities:
7.1 Regularly review and update the M&E system
7.2 Review ability to collect, enter, analyze and utilize data
7.3 Review decision-making process
7.4 Review resources for M&E
7.5 Manage the stakeholder feedback mechanism
2.7.1 Regularly review and update the M&E system

While the project is being implemented it is important to review the M&E system to ensure it is
delivering its intended purpose, as well as re-forecasting as with any project component to ensure
that sufficient resources are being allocated to it for it to deliver as planned. The effectiveness of
the M&E system in achieving its purposes (see section 1.4.2) should be monitored and reviewed
and the system updated and refined regularly. M&E planning, as with any form of project activity,
should be a dynamic rather than static process. The M&E system should ideally be field tested
before it is put into operation and changes in methods, tools or capacity addressed. Challenges to
the M&E system that might occur during a project and potential solutions to them include:
• It might be felt that data collected does not indicate project progress or facilitate decision-
making around ways in which to improve the project to attain its stated objectives; consideration
should then be given to collecting alternate/additional data;
• There might be an issue around whether data collected is being appropriately entered and
managed; retraining of staff might then be necessary;
• There might be an issue around whether data collected is being fully analyzed and utilized;
processes of analyzing and utilizing data should then be reviewed;
• The cost of conducting M&E activities might be higher than planned; in this instance
budgets should be reviewed and budget line item flexibility utilized;
• Stakeholders may express concerns or grievances with M&E processes; this should be
discussed openly with stakeholders, and agreement reached on how to improve processes;
• There may be sudden demands for more M&E information, such as to investigate unexpected
issues identified during data analysis; M&E resources should then be reallocated;
• There may be changes in M&E capacity, due to increased skills or turn over of staff that can
impact the M&E plan; it is therefore advisable to have back-up M&E focal points for each project.
It is important to remember that projects are as dynamic as the context they operate in and the
objectives they seek. Objectives may change due to contextual factors (i.e. due to civil conflict or
natural disaster), external changes (i.e. in donor funding or government policy), personnel/capacity
changes, or simply to refine and improve strategies and activities. It is also important to revisit
the stated assumptions in the logframe and whether they hold or change project objectives. Such
changes can affect the original M&E plan.
A mechanism to review and update the M&E plan is therefore recommended, and should
describe by whom, when, how and how frequently the M&E plan is reviewed. The timing of
such reviews will depend largely on the timeframe of the project itself.

As well as project M&E systems, organizational M&E processes should also be reviewed, such
as through a meta evaluation (see Annex 10) or through After Action Reviews (see Annex 9).
Finally, it is important to ensure that any changes to the M&E system are clearly explained to
key stakeholders, especially when requiring donor approval (e.g. in instances where changes
to the logical framework and indicators are required).
2.7.2 Review ability to collect, enter, analyze and utilize data

As well as reviewing data collected, agreement should be reached about how often, by whom, and
how the M&E system should be assessed to see if it is meeting its intended purpose. This review
should include an assessment of the extent to which:
• Data are properly collected, entered, analysed, communicated and utilised;

• Findings are being disseminated through the right channels, at the right time to be used, to the
appropriate stakeholders and utilised by them.
The review can be conducted through spot-checks by Project Managers as well as through After
Action Reviews (see Annex 9) with those involved. Questions to ask include:
• Are data collected being analysed and reported on to key stakeholders?

• Are data collected proving relevant to assessing project performance?
• Are data collected and reported on being used to facilitate decision-making?
Where negative answers are coming up, consideration should be given to how processes and
resource allocation should be altered to ensure that data are ultimately used to ensure a project is
meeting assessed needs.
2.7.3 Review decision-making process

A key aspect of the M&E system is that it should facilitate evidence-based decision-making at
both field and HQ level, though primarily at field level. As such it is critical to review the extent to
which:
• Stakeholders feel that their information needs are being met (see section 2.1.2 and section
2.7.4 below) such that they feel empowered to make evidence-based decisions;
• Stakeholders are actually using the information to make evidence-based decisions;
• Decisions are being documented and implications being fed back into the project process
and M&E system.
Again, an After Action Review (see Annex 9) is the most useful way of reviewing this. Questions
around the following should be discussed:
• Are data findings and reports being read?

• Are data findings and reports being systematically reviewed through a number of different fora
(e.g. project meetings to review APRs, survey findings or evaluations, meetings with communities
to review activities and change processes etc.)?
• Are managers using data findings to guide decision-making, particularly around resource
allocation?
• Are M&E findings being used to revise plans (short-term activity-plans as well as overall project
plans)?

Where negative answers are coming up, again consideration should be given as to how processes
could be altered to ensure data are user-friendly and used to inform decision-making.
2.7.4 Review resources for M&E

Critical to the M&E system functioning effectively is the appropriate and sufficient resources
(human, financial, equipment and time) allocation:
• As part of regular budget reforecasting, a review should also be undertaken around whether
sufficient financial resources have been allocated for the M&E system to function as required.
• A regular review of the M&E plan and calendar (see Toolkit 4) should ensure any changes in
timing and resources are updated.
• Following M&E training for staff, follow-up and on-the-job support should be provided to ensure
that staff capacity is sufficient to meet M&E system requirements.
Box 2.28: Checklist for M&E resource planning and allocation

1. Undertaking daily monitoring M&E Plan (Toolkit 4)
2. Review ability to collect, analyze and utilize Lessons Learned Log (Toolkit 18)
data
3. Review decision-making process Action Log (Toolkit 15)
4. Review resources for M&E Decision Log (Toolkit 17)
M&E budget
Questions to consider include:

• Are there sufficient human and logistics resources to undertake the M&E activities planned?
• Are the appropriate technical skills available to deliver on the M&E activities planned?
• Are the tools, templates and software used appropriate to M&E requirements?
• Are financial resources sufficient to fulfill M&E plans?
• Where negative answers are coming up, again consideration should be given to how resources
can be reallocated or more/fewer sought to deliver on plans.
2.7.5 Manage the stakeholder feedback mechanism

Reviewing and revising the M&E plans also includes regular reviews of the stakeholder feedback
mechanisms to ensure stakeholders are adequately involved and taking part in the M&E system.
This process includes:
• Feedback/complaints are being collected and documented;

• Feedback/complaints are being raised with the relevant parties and acted on;
• Updates and resolutions to feedback/complaints are being discussed and communicated
back with the relevant stakeholders;
• Follow-up is happening with those stakeholders to ensure that the feedback/complaint has
been fully addressed.
As previously highlighted an Action Log (see Toolkit 10 and 15) can help keep track of the status of
feedback/complaints being addressed.

As well as addressing feedback/complaints, the mechanism itself should be regularly reviewed to
check:
• If it is being utilized;
• If the communication channels established are appropriate and accessible to the intended
stakeholders;
• If the communication channels within ACF are working properly such that the full mechanism
cycle is functioning effectively, from feedback/complaints are raised, to their being
communicated to the relevant people, acted on and fed back to stakeholders.
If the above prove to be challenging, it is recommended that focus group discussions should
be held to ascertain why aspects of the feedback mechanism are not working, with
recommendations agreed on as to how to rectify these and responsibilities and timeframes
allocated to address these. One overall responsible focal point should be charged with following up
to ensure these recommendations are being taken forward.
2.8 Step 8: Agree on Process of Evaluation Management

Step 8: Agree on process of evaluation management
Objective of step: To clarify a process of evaluation management, how evaluation
recommendations should be followed and reviewed
Timing: During implementation or evaluation
Activities:
8.1 Determine the purpose of the evaluation
8.2 Planning evaluation Terms of Reference and commissioning evaluation
8.3 Agree on evaluation methodology
8.4 Agree on evaluation preparation and research undertaking
8.5 Plan country/field visits
8.6 Agree on evaluation reporting
8.7 Agree on evaluation findings dissemination plan
This section is intended for those managing evaluations, as a step-by-step approach to how an
evaluation should be overseen, with checklists included to ensure each step is covered.
As detailed in section 1.2 an evaluation is a systematic and impartial examination of humanitarian

action intended to draw lessons to improve policy and practice, and enhance accountability (see
Buchanan Smith, M. & Cosgrave, J. in Bibliography), with most based on assessing performance
against the OECD/DAC criteria: Impact, Coherence, Coordination, Coverage, Relevance /
Appropriateness, Effectiveness and Efficiency.
The ACF Evaluation Policy and Guideline outlines details of which projects should be evaluated and
how (see Box 2.32 below):

Box 2.29: ACF Evaluation Policy and Guideline - summary of key points
The below summarizes six key points of the Policy to be taken into account in the M&E Plan:
1. Which projects should be evaluated? All ACF interventions should be evaluated: from
single projects and multi-project programmes to country-level and regional strategies.
2. What type of evaluations should be undertaken? The type of evaluation used will vary
according to the size and length of the intervention. Smaller interventions (<€ 400,000) should
be evaluated once using internal self-evaluation tools, whilst larger interventions (> €1,000,000)
should be evaluated twice using external evaluators;
Tab e of valuation types by project budget size
Budget Timing Type of Evaluation
<€ 400,00 Final Evaluation Internal
€400,000 – 1,000,000 Final Evaluation External
> €1,000,000 Mid-Term & Final Evaluation External
Particular emphasis should be placed on evaluating and documenting pilot or innovative

technical approaches including advocacy strategies, regional programmes, partnerships and
collaborative initiatives.
3. Should emergency projects/responses be evaluated? ACF responses to rapid-onset

emergencies (e.g. Haiti Earthquake or Pakistan) should be the focus of more elaborate
evaluation processes, using a specifically designed ToR (see Annex 38);
4. When should programmes be evaluated? Final evaluations should be carried out as close
as possible to the end of the programme. This will ensure that evaluations are able to capture the
full extent of the intervention, its activities and its impact. Some interventions might need lag time
to be able to measure impact, hence a 6-12 months post-project evaluation might be appropriate.
5. Who should commission the evaluations? At field level, Heads of Mission and Programme/
Project Coordinators should ensure that evaluations are included in the relevant budgets.
At HQ, Programme Officers, Desk Officers, Technical Advisors and Project Coordinators
should ensure that evaluations are included in internal and donor proposals.
6. How much should be budgeted for evaluations? There are no set costs for evaluations;
costs will be determined by a number of factors including the type and/or size of the intervention
being evaluated, the country in which it takes place, the length of the evaluation and the skill set
necessary to evaluate the programme, its strategic importance and the decision on an internal or
external evaluation process. In order to provide some general guidance, ACF-UK will produce an
up-to-date Annual Evaluation Budget, with a suggested total amount and an individual cost for all
relevant budget lines.
Source: ACF Evaluation Policy 2011
The box below complements the above box by detailing how to manage an evaluation in seven
steps. Before the process is embarked on, an evaluation manager should be agreed; this is most
likely to the Programme Manager or Coordinator:

Box 2.30: Evaluation steps and responsibilities checklist
Step Tasks Responsibility Output
1. Define purpose • Determine whether • Evaluation
of the evaluation evaluation will be Manager
accountability or
• Country Director /
learning-oriented
Coordinator
• Determine the intended
audience
• Agree timing of
evaluation
2. Planning and • Agree evaluation criteria • Evaluation • ToR & budget
commissioning an Manager
• Map out evaluation • Steering Group ToR
Evaluation Terms
stakeholders • Evaluation
of Reference • ToR/Tender
Manager
• Draft evaluation ToR document
including resourcing • Evaluation
Manager
• Circulate ToR for
feedback/approval • Evaluation
Manager
• Select and brief
evaluation Steering • Evaluation
Group Manager
• Undertake Evaluator/ • Evaluation
Consultant selection Manager (+
Steering Group)
3. Evaluation • Brief Evaluator/ • Evaluation • Inception report
inception Consultant Manager
• Undertake initial research • Evaluator/
Consultant(s)
• Draft Inception Report
• Evaluator/
• Circulate Inception
Consultant(s)
Report for feedback and
approval • Evaluation
Manager
and Steering
Group
4. Evaluation • Undertake project • Evaluator/ • Interview notes
preparation and documentation desk Consultant(s)
• Visit plan
research research
• Evaluator/
• Dissemination plan
• Conduct interviews (HQ/ Consultant(s)
email/phone)
• Evaluator/
• Plan country visit(s) Consultant(s),
Evaluation
• Plan evaluation
Manager and
report dissemination/
Steering Group
communication plan

5. Country visit(s) • Planning in-country • Evaluator/ • Visit schedule
activities Consultant(s)
• In-country
• Draft and circulate visit • Evaluator/ workshops
schedule Consultant(s)
• Visit report
• Undertake in-country • Evaluator/
desk research Consultant(s)
• Undertake in-country • Evaluator/
workshop(s) Consultant(s)
• Draft and circulate visit • Evaluator/
report Consultant(s)
6. Reporting • Draft report and • Evaluator/ • Draft Report
evaluation summary Consultant(s)
• Revised Report
• Circulate report for • Evaluation
• Final Report
comment Manager
• Edit and revise report • Evaluator/
Consultant(s) &
• Circulation revised report
editor
for comment
• Evaluation
• Management response
Manager
facilitated
• Evaluator/
• Final amendments to
Consultant(s)
report
& Evaluation
Manager
7. Dissemination • Distribution and • Evaluation • Evaluation report
publication of evaluation Manager
• Workshop(s)
report and summary
• Evaluator/
• Post-Evaluation
• Evaluation findings Consultant(s),
Action Plan
dissemination workshops Steering Group
with key stakeholders and Evaluation
(field office, HQ, donors, Manager
partners, beneficiaries)
• Evaluation
• From evaluation Manager
recommendations agree
actions with stakeholders
Source: Adapted from: DFID, (2005), Guidance on Evaluation and Review
2.8.1 Determine the purpose of the evaluation

As part of the process of agreeing on a project M&E plan (see section 2.4), project evaluations
should be mapped out. The purpose of these should be clarified to agree whether they are more
geared towards accountability (i.e. assessing the extent to which a project has achieved its aims
with resources provided, either as part of internal or donor requirements) or towards learning (i.e.
to learn lessons that can be fed back into existing or future project planning). This will determine
whether the evaluation is internal or external (see Annex 39).
A key aspect of determining the evaluation purpose is agreeing on who is the intended audience
of the evaluation (donor, internal management, the project team, beneficiaries etc.). Depending on
the information needs of the intended audience, the evaluation should be structured accordingly.

Depending therefore on whether it is accountability- or learning-oriented the following differences in
approach may apply:
Box 2.31: Planning for an accountability vs. learning-oriented evaluation

Characteristic Accountability-oriented Lesson-learning oriented
Terms of Likely to be set by those external Likely to be set by those directly
Reference (ToR) to the programme, e.g. country involved in the programme e.g.
director/HQ. programme coordinator.
Evaluation team Independent external team. Internal team of project staff, or
composition mixed team of project and non-
project staff.
Resources (time & Likely to require more time Likely to be less resource intensive
budget) and may be more expensive, in most areas, save internal staff
particularly if external evaluators and time .
are recruited and a more thorough
review of project details is
required.
Emphasis in Methodology of data collection Process of reflection and reaching
approach and analysis emphasise objective, conclusions emphasised – more
assessment of achievement of subjective.
plans with resource available.
Evaluation type Likely to be undertaken at end Likely to be undertaken during
(see Annex 10) of project to check achievement project for lessons to feed back
against plans. into current/future project(s), e.g.
through real time evaluation. After
Action Reviews (see Annex 63) are
particularly useful and cost-effective
for internal learning.
Management style More directive More facilitative
Report In public domain Internal to organisation/restricted/
dissemination external

Action, ALNAP
Finally, at this stage agreement should be reached on the approximate timing of the evaluation.
The Country Director and Coordinators should aim to include a final external evaluation for each
project. Desk Officers and Technical Advisors should check internal and donor proposals and
budgets to ensure that evaluations have been included where appropriate. Managers should
also be aware that evaluation of the overall country strategy, as well as specific project should be
incorporated accordingly.
2.8.2 Planning evaluation Terms of Reference and commissioning

evaluations
The standard evaluation framework recommended by the ACF evaluation policy are the
OECD/DAC criteria (see Box 2.35). When planning an evaluation, discussions should be had on
whether any other evaluation frameworks should be combined with these criteria – see below.
The following six steps should then be followed to plan and commission the evaluation:

1. Agree on the evaluation framework and criteria: The OECD/DAC evaluation criteria are often
the preferred framework for evaluations, agreed on by a cross-section of sector representatives.
The table includes some sample evaluation questions that can be used with this evaluation
framework. While it is not an exhaustive list, “less is more” in evaluation Terms of Reference;
namely it is better to focus on a few key questions that the evaluator can expand on rather than
creating an exhaustive list that may constrain the evaluator’s flexibility.
Box 2.32: Sample evaluation questions against the OECD DAC evaluation criteria
Criteria Definition Sample questions
Appropriateness Relevance is concerned with How far did the project meet
/ Relevance assessing whether the project is in the main needs of the affected
line with local needs and priorities population?
(as well as donor policy).
To what extent was the
affected population involved in
the intervention?
Effectiveness Effectiveness measures the extent To what extent are programme
to which an activity achieves its objectives being reached/likely
objectives/purpose, or whether this to be reached? Did the outputs
can be expected to happen on the achieved result in the desired
basis of the outputs. outcomes?
Efficiency Efficiency measures the outputs Are the inputs (money, time,
(qualitative and quantitative) human and material resources)
achieved as a result of inputs. This appropriate in relation to the
requires comparing alternative outputs/results?
approaches to achieving an output,
to see whether the most efficient
approach has been used.
Impact Impact looks at the wider mid to What change has happened
long term effects of the project - as a result of the project/
social, economic, technical, and programme? Was in interned /
environmental - on individuals, unintended, positive / negative
gender- and age-groups, change?
communities and institutions. Impact
can be intended or unintended,
positive or negative, macro (sector)
or micro (household) level.
Connectedness Connectedness refers to the need If appropriate, has the project
(Sustainability) to ensure that activities of a short- been planned with the longer-
term emergency nature are carried term in mind?
out in a context that takes longer-
term and interconnected problems Will benefits likely be sustained
into account. Connectedness has for an extended period after
been adapted from the concept the project ends?
of sustainability - the idea that
interventions should support longer- Has learning from past projects
term goals, and eventually be been used to shape this one?
managed without donor input.
Is learning fed back into
adjusting this project or
captured for future work?

Coverage Coverage is the need to reach Were any groups excluded
major population groups facing from assistance? How
life-threatening suffering wherever (criteria) has support for
they are. different groups been
prioritized?
Coherence Coherence is the need to assess To what extent was the project
security, developmental, trade consistent with Government
and military policies as well as policy?
humanitarian policies, to ensure
that there is consistency and, in To what extent was there
particular, that all policies take into coordination happened with
account humanitarian and human- other actors (Government, UN,
rights considerations. NGOs)?
Coordination Coordination is the extent to which Were there any gaps or
the interventions of different actors duplication in the sectors
are harmonised with each other, covered?
promote synergy, avoid gaps,
duplication, and resource conflicts.
Source: OECD DAC criteria guide (2001)
In utilizing the DAC criteria for an evaluation, achievement against each should be scored using a
five-point scale of the ACF Evaluation Policy as detailed in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Scoring achievements against the OECD DAC Criteria

Rating (1 low, 5 high)
Criteria Rationale
1 2 3 4 5
Impact
Sustainability
Coherence
Coverage
Relevance/
Appropriateness
Effectiveness
Efficiency
As well as the above criteria, a project can also be evaluated against initial project hypotheses, its
logic model or theory of change as detailed in its logframe.
Other criteria from sector or specific thematic frameworks can also be added to the evaluation
criteria. This might include specific codes or standards for adherence and quality such as
Sphere, ACF Charter, Code of Conduct, The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership, Groupe
URD Quality Compass etc). It might include specific thematic frameworks on FSL, such as the
Household Livelihood Security framework, the Household Economy Approach, or the Sustainable
Livelihoods Framework or frameworks around specific types of FSL contexts, such as complex
emergencies. It might also include specific frameworks on cross-cutting issues such as: the Hyogo
Framework for climate change and the environment, the Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient
Community for DRR, the IASC Gender Handbook criteria, and protection principles for the most

vulnerable as laid out in a number of frameworks, amongst other things. This might include specific
codes and standards for adherence and quality and specific thematic frameworks on FSL or
other thematic specialization (see Annex 40).
Frameworks for specific approaches, such as training, can also be used.
2. Map out the evaluation stakeholders: Not all stakeholders will hold equal interest in the project,
it is important therefore to map stakeholders. The diagram is one way of doing it, aided by the
below prompt questions:
• Who are the primary stakeholders for this evaluation? How Stakeholders to be
influenced by evaluation
can you engage them, encourage their ownership, and
Stakeholders to
ensure relevance of the evaluation to their needs? be consulted
Primary
• Which other stakeholders do you need to consult? Stakeholders
• Which other stakeholders need to be informed? Evaluation
• Which stakeholders need to be influenced?

• Which stakeholders’ needs should you prioritise to make
the evaluation do-able and retain focus?
Source: Adapted from: Buchanan-Smith, M. & Cosgrave, J.

(2010) Evaluation of Humanitarian Action, ALNAP
3. Draft evaluation ToR including resourcing: An evaluation Terms of Reference (ToR) should
be drafted in line with the Evaluation ToR template (see Annex 38). This should be costed and
a budget (see Box 2.32) for the evaluation included (see Toolkit 19). A draft timetable of the
evaluation (see Toolkit 20) should also be put in place and finalized with the evaluator.
4. Circulate ToR for feedback/approval: The ToR should be circulated to key stakeholders for
feedback and approval; this might include project stakeholders, HQ and the donor.
5. Select and brief evaluation Steering Group: If this is an external evaluation, a Steering Group
comprising of project stakeholders and people independent to the project can be appointed to
support the Evaluation Manager in steering the evaluation.
6. Undertake Evaluator/ Consultant selection: If the evaluation is to be external, then the ToR
should be put to tender for evaluators to bid. If it is to be internal, the ToR should be circulated
amongst the likely team for feedback. If local project staffs are included in the evaluation team,
some training may be required.

2.8.3 Agree on evaluation methodology
Once evaluators (internal or external) have been agreed on, the following four steps should be
taken:
1. Brief evaluator: The evaluation manager should brief the evaluator on the project background,
key stakeholders, key project documents and purpose of the evaluation.
2. Undertake initial research: Following the briefing and provision to the evaluator(s) of key
documents, they should spend some time reviewing these to draft an inception report.
3. Draft Inception Report: The evaluator(s) should compile a short Inception Report for submission
to the evaluation manager and circulation to the evaluation steering group (see Annex 41).
Box 2.33: The purpose of an inception report

What is an inception report? An initial report prepared by the evaluator(s) demonstrating
understanding of the project and purpose of the evaluation and approach to be adopted.
What is the purpose? The aim of the inception report is to:
• Highlight at an early stage any differences in understanding the evaluation between the
evaluation manager and the evaluation(s).
• Provide an opportunity for the evaluation manager to assess how the evaluator(s) plan to
approach the evaluation.
• Enable the evaluator(s) to turn the terms of reference into a feasible task list that is agreed
with the evaluation manager.
• Allow the evaluator(s) to plan work in a coherent way.
• Provide stakeholders with a clear statement of intent by evaluators so that they can highlight or
clarify any concerns or misunderstandings that they have with the proposed approach.
• Provide the evaluation manager with an opportunity to address problems with the evaluator(s)’
understanding and approach before they become issues, including on:
èè The context of the project/intervention.
èè The context of the response and of the activities to be evaluated.
èè The purpose and intent of the evaluation.
èè The concern of stakeholders.
The Inception report should include key aspects covered in the evaluation ToR, fleshed out following
initial briefings and documentation review, including:
• Evaluation background and context: Should demonstrate a clear understanding of the

context.
• Evaluation objectives: Should demonstrate understanding of the purpose of the evaluation.
• Methodology: Should map out a clear logical approach to undertaking the evaluation, methods
to be used, and how they will answer the questions posed by the evaluation. If quantitative
surveys are to be undertaken, the full sampling method should be outlined along with details of
who will undertake the data collection, entry and analysis.
• Timetable: Should include a clear realistic timetable of activities and key milestones, including
travel itinerary, allowing a check with the project team that timing does not clash with any other

planned project activities. Milestones for reporting should also be included (see Toolkit 20 for
Evaluation Timetable Template).
• Roles and responsibilities: Should clearly assign roles and responsibilities to those involved,
including the steering or advisory group.
• Stakeholder analysis: Should identify key stakeholder who need to be engaged and
demonstrate an awareness of any possible concerns held by those stakeholders.
• Risks and mitigating measures: Should indicate risks to the evaluation process and mitigating
measures proposed, such that they can be followed up with the evaluation manager if they arise.
• Annexes: Should include a list of proposed interviews and focus groups, and interview questions.
4. Circulate Inception Report for feedback and approval: Once the Inception Report is drafted it
should be circulated to the Steering Group for feedback and approval before proceeding.
2.8.4 Agree on evaluation preparation and research undertaking

With the Inception Report signed off, the evaluator(s) should then focus on undertaking some more
in-depth preparation for field work and local research of other documents not reviewed previously;
this could include things like monitoring reports and other more detailed data. These include the
following four steps:
1. Undertake project documentation desk research: Time should be planned for the evaluator(s)
to review more detailed key project documentation before going to the field.
2. Conduct interviews (HQ/email/phone): Any interviews at HQ should be conducted before

travel, ideally these should be face-to-face but failing that, by phone or email.
3. Plan country visit(s): Details of field travel to the country/countries in question should be agreed
on in terms of dates, locations to be visited, stakeholders (staff, beneficiaries, partners, donors)
to be met and all associated administrative arrangements.
4. Plan evaluation report dissemination/communication plan: Having agreed on the approach

and stakeholders to be consulted as part of the evaluation, a more detailed dissemination plan
can now be agreed on before field work commences.
2.8.5 Plan country/field visits

On arrival in-country, final arrangements should be made for in-country research and field visits:
1. Planning in-country activities: Details of in-country activities (locally available documentation

that needs to be reviewed, stakeholders that should be interviewed, field visits and workshops
to be arranged etc.) should be agreed on with the evaluation manager, admin and logistics staff.
2. Draft and circulate visit schedule: A schedule of field visits to meet with key stakeholders (local
communities, authorities, partners, local donors etc.) should be agreed on with stakeholders.
3. Undertake in-country desk research: Any additional documentation only available locally
should be reviewed.
4. Undertake in-country workshop(s) and interviews: Workshops, focus groups or interviews

with key stakeholders (staff, partners, communities etc.) should be arranged for discussion on
achievements of the project. See Annex 4: Data Collection Methods and Sections 2.4 on data
collection, analysis and utilisation.

5. Draft and circulate visit report: On conclusion of the field visits, findings can be summarised in
a trip report. This is optional. Depending on whether the visit is concluded, a debriefing session
with the Country Director, Coordinator and Project Manager can be held at this stage.
2.8.6 Agree on evaluation reporting

Having collected all the data for the evaluation, analysis and report writing should commence:
1. Draft report and evaluation summary: A first draft of the evaluation report should be compiled,
along the lines of the below structure:
a. Executive Summary (2-3 pages): Background to the project; Operational context; Objectives
of the project; Purpose and audience of the evaluation (short paragraph); Brief methodology
overview (short paragraph); Main findings (in order of importance); Main recommendations.
NB: There should be no more than 10 recommendations and these should be clearly
linked to the findings; recommendations can either be grouped by theme or by
intended user.
b. Introduction: Evaluation objectives; Scope of work; Methodology overview; Evaluation team

composition.
c. Contextual and operational overview: Background to the project/programme; Objectives

of the project/programme and key activities.
d. Findings and recommendations: Presentation of key findings and linked recommendations

against each of the evaluation criteria (NB: Recommendations can also be summarised by key
user stakeholder who should take them forward); recommendations for future programming
(linked to key findings); key lessons learned.
e. Annexes: ToR; Evaluation methodology; Evaluation dissemination plan; Recommendations

and plan for follow-up actions; List of persons interviewed; List of documents reviewed; List of
places/locations visited; Evaluation itinerary; Background information on the report authors.
2. Circulate report for comments: The first draft of the report should be circulated to the steering
group and any other key stakeholders for feedback and comments provided to the evaluators.
3. Edit and revise report: Following provisions of comments, the report should be revised by the
evaluators.
4. Circulation of revised report for comments: The revised report should be circulated to the
initial immediate stakeholders for comment and any wider stakeholder groups felt appropriate.
5. Management response facilitated: Opportunity should be given for a management response to

the report, should there be any disagreement with findings.
6. Final amendments to report: Feedback gathered should be used to finalise the report
Translations should be made as required.

2.8.7 Agree on evaluation findings dissemination plan
With the finalisation of the report, it should be prepared in appropriate format for dissemination:
1. Distribution and publication of evaluation report and summary: If the report is to be

published, distribution should occur in line with the plan in the appropriate format and language.
For some audiences the executive summary might suffice. Where PowerPoint summaries are
more appropriate, these should be crafted from the report. If the report is to be discussed with
beneficiaries, the appropriate discussion guides should be agreed upon.
2. Evaluation results dissemination workshops with key stakeholders (field office, HQ,
donors, partners, beneficiaries): Workshops should be arranged as appropriate to discuss
findings and results with key stakeholders. These should be arranged well in advance to ensure
attendance, and the report and executive summary circulated beforehand to allow time for
stakeholders to absorb findings for a facilitated discussion. As with any workshop organisation,
the structure and content should be mindful of the audience. Workshops should aim to assess
the findings and delve into the reasons for these, as well as potentially also agree on action
points based on the recommendations made.
3. With evaluation recommendations agree actions with stakeholders: As part of dissemination

workshops discussion should be had on whether stakeholders agree or disagree with the
findings and recommendations made by the evaluation. For the recommendations agreed on,
a Post Evaluation Action Plan (see Toolkit 21) should be drawn up with key stakeholders, and
responsibilities and timeframes.

Chapter Summary
1. There are 8 key steps required to set up an M&E system. These are:
Step 1: Agree on purpose and principles of the project’s M&E System
Step 2: Agree on and design core documents to set up M&E system
Step 4: Agree on field monitoring data collection and management process
Step 5: Agree on monitoring data analysis process
Step 6: Agree on process for monitoring data utilization and reporting
Step 8: Agree on process of evaluation management
2. Each step should be undertaken at key stages of the project cycle. Steps 1-2 should be
undertaken during project design, Step 3 before implementation commences and Steps 4-8
during implementation.
3. All steps are applicable to all contexts (emergency, recovery and longer-term
developmental projects), the difference being the speed with which they are planned
and undertaken, the type of data collected and methods used. For emergency contexts
data cycles will necessarily be shorter, with a greater focus on output rather than outcome
data. Evaluations therefore are necessary to address the latter.
4. Using ACF’s standardized core indicators: When determining indicators for an FSL project
monitoring plan, ACF’s core FSL indicators should be used for all FSL projects. These
are nine mandatory indicators that give an overview of the factors affecting FSL and ultimately
malnutrition, given that ACF’s core organizational aims are of preventing malnutrition, and
where required treating it. They include:
• Severity of Household Food Insecurity measured by Household Food Insecurity Access Scale
(HFIAS) (Annex 29)
• Availability of Sufficient Food on Household level measured by Months of Adequate Household
Food Provisioning (MAHFP) (Annex 30)
• Risk to malnutrition of children under 5 years of age in the household measured by Mid Upper
Arm Circumference (MUAC) (Annex 31)
5. The purpose of ACF’s core indicators that all FSL projects should use is to ensure
all projects work towards these common objectives; to serve as the standard indicators
against which all projects can report against by way of starting to collect comparative cross-
project data; to encourage greater focus on the medium and longer-term change (outcomes
and impact); and, to encourage greater focus on the medium and longer-term change being
brought about by programming, as opposed to focus only on activities and outputs.
6. ACF’s core indicators should be supplemented with thematic indicators; these include
a selection of other relevant but optional indicators laid out by thematic area. These cut
across all FSL areas of work, and focus more specifically on ways of measuring change
in each thematic area. These are optional as they will depend on what specific thematic
areas a project is covering, so project staff can select those indicators most appropriate for
their activities. Selecting from a predetermined list of indicators also facilitates standardization
across projects, while also allowing flexibility to adapt them to be context-specific.

Chapter 3
Cross-Cutting M&E Issues
3.2 Step 2: Monitor the Application of Codes & Standards
3
3.1 Step 1: Ensure M&E System Complies with M&E Standards and Ethics
3.3 Step 3: Assess which Cross-cutting Issues to Build into the M&E System
97
102
103
105

c ACF Philippines - Isabel S. Navarro
96
Chapter objective
The aim of this section is to recognize the factors that make an M&E system effective and valid. In
order to do so, it needs to adhere to internal standards within ACF as well as general M&E standards.
It also needs to recognize and address cross-cutting issues that lie within the environment.
3.1 Step 1: Ensure M&E System Complies with M&E Standards and Ethics
Step 1: Ensure M&E System complies with M&E ethics and standards
Objective of step: To ensure that the M&E system adheres to the M&E ethics and legal
considerations that should be built into the M&E process.
Timing: During project design and proposal writing stage
Activities:
1.1 Abide by M&E ethical practices particularly informed consent and confidentiality
1.2 Abide by M&E principles of participation and “do no harm”
1.3 Ensure transparency and address corruption
1.4 Abide by M&E standards
1.5 Minimize error and bias in M&E
3.1.1 Abide by M&E ethical praoctices particularly informed consent and confidentiality
This section focuses on the ethical and legal considerations that should be built into the M&E
process. The quality, reliability and therefore credibility of M&E findings and subsequent
decision-making can be compromised if ethical considerations are not taken into account. In
particular, the welfare of those involved in and affected by M&E should be safeguarded. M&E
processes should therefore abide by international professional ethics, standards and regulations
to minimize any negative ramifications or risks to stakeholders, particularly local stakeholders, and
ensure credibility and accountability. Key considerations include:

Box 3.1: M&E principles and ethical considerations checklist
Consideration Description
Informed consent Any form of social research is conducted on the basis of informed consent.
Potential respondents should be informed of the interview purpose:
• The purpose of the data collection and what it is looking to find out,
• How the information will be used for and whether it will be published.
They should also be informed of the interview ground rules:
• Option of confidentiality,
• Means of information gathering and recording,
• Participation requirements.
For key informant interviews this can be done with an Interview Protocol
Card (see Annex 42). Once rules have been explained, respondents
consent for participating should be sought.
Humanitarian evaluation information in particular is normally gathered on

the basis that comments by respondents are not attributed to them as
they may occur in complex emergencies or contexts where respondents
could be at risk if identified. Names can be replaced by “Respondent One”,
“Respondent Two” etc. If one respondent is made anonymous, it may be
appropriate for all respondents at that location to be anonymous.
Anonymity / A person’s right to provide information in confidence and anonymously
confidentiality should be built into evaluation data collection, with potential respondents
asked about their preference for anonymity. Any sensitive information
should not be traceable to its source (e.g. sensitive opinions). For
monitoring, certain personal information is required for accountability
purposes (e.g. name, number if household members etc.).
Systematic All research should be thorough, using appropriate methods of enquiry
Inquiry and the highest technical standards, and based on valid data. Information
should be validated using multiple approaches and sources.
Competence Data collectors, enumerators and analysts should be equipped with the
appropriate training, skills and experience to undertake the data collection
required and should only be expected to work within the limits of their
professional training and competence. There should be continuous striving
to improve methodologies and practice skills.
Integrity ACF organisational procedures should be adhered to as part of any
research and any challenges to these raised with the relevant people. Any
real or potential conflict of interest should be highlighted. Misrepresentation
of data and results should be avoided. Any issues that arise suggesting
any wrongdoing should be reported.
Respect and Local customs on dress code, personal interaction, religious beliefs and
cultural sensitivity practices, should be respected and cultural sensitivity shown. Differences
in religion, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation and ethnicity should
be taken into account in research.
Right to privacy People may not want to openly discuss issues and should have the option
to decline.

Time constraints People may be extremely busy and their participation in research can
be burdensome. Ample notice should be given as much as possible and
demands on time minimised.
Responsibility for Criticism can have serious consequences for individual (particularly national
outputs staff) and organizational reputations. Those collecting and reporting on
data should be mindful of any potential consequences, in terms of security
and local presence, for those involved in the data collection and reporting.
Accountability Research undertaken should be in line with the Terms of Reference agreed
and results presented accurately, identifying any limitations or uncertainties
that could impact on interpretations. All expenditures should be accounted
for to ensure value for money.
Omissions Where issues and findings arise that are not directly part of the research
but relate to the project, they should be acknowledged and discussed with
the relevant staff.
Balancing values There is a delicate balance between some cultural practices and the
and cultural deprivation of fundamental human rights. Sensitive topics should be treated
norms with care, such as in dealing with marginalized groups (e.g. internally
displaced people or ethnic minorities), following traumas (e.g. natural
disaster, or conflict, or domestic violence). The UN Universal Declaration
of Human Rights should serve as an operating guide in such instance.
Source: Adapted from: CIDA (1990), CIDA Evaluation Guide, pp.26-28
3.1.2 Abide by M&E principles of participation and “do no harm”

As much as is feasible, appropriate and dependent on funding, M&E should be participatory (see
Section 1.5). Local involvement increases the legitimacy and likely utilization of M&E information,
as well as ownership for and support of the process. As discussed in Chapter 1, at a minimum
stakeholders should be consulted when planning an M&E system. A key aspect of such participation
is that an M&E system should facilitate stakeholders to express any concerns or complaints, and
have a process in place for addressing these. (See Annex 43 for Establishing a community based
M&E system).
As highlighted in Chapter 1, M&E activities should facilitate accountability and learning by

collecting data that can facilitate learning what works and what does not through the project, and
taking the appropriate decisions to correct areas not working.
As with any humanitarian or development activity, the principle of “do no harm” should be
upheld in M&E activities. Data collectors and those disseminating M&E findings/reports should
take into account where information might endanger or embarrass respondents or those non-
community members involved in conducting the research. While the integrity of findings should not
be compromised given the legal and ethical responsibility to report evidence of criminal activity or
wrongdoing that may harm others (e.g. child abuse, domestic violence etc), no harm should come
to those involved.
3.1.3 Ensure transparency and address corruption

Increasingly the humanitarian sector is moving to a trend of greater transparency, at least in terms of
sharing evaluations. Greater transparency however is still required in sharing M&E findings amongst
communities of practice and beneficiaries.
Lessons from recent mega-disasters such as the Asian Tsunami, Haiti or Pakistan, where there is
a high concentration of resources, have highlighted the need for clear policies of zero tolerance on

corruption and transparency in the utilisation of funds. However, the monitoring of potential or actual
lower level corruption in projects should also continually be reviewed and checked.
3.1.4 Abide by M&E standards

M&E should be conducted in line with codes and standards appropriate and relevant to ACF and the
project being undertaken, and adherence to them monitored. These can include:
• The ACF Charter requires adherence to the principles of: Independence, Neutrality, Non-
Discrimination, Free and Direct Access to Victims, Professionalism and Transparency.
• The Sphere Project Handbook six core ‘process and people’ standards that are relevant to
each of the technical sectors, include i) people centred humanitarian response, ii) coordination
and collaboration, iii) assessment, iv) design and response, v) performance, transparency and
learning, and vi) aid worker performance. See Box 3.2 below on the key indicators of monitoring.
• The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and
NGOs in Disaster Relief requires adherence to the principles of: i) Humanitarian imperative, ii)
Basis of need, iii) No proselytizing, iv) Not foreign agents, v) Respect culture, vi) Build on local
capacities, vii) Involve beneficiaries, viii) Reduce vulnerability, ix) Accountable both ways, x)
Respect victims as human beings.
• Professional standards in M&E including ACF’s Evaluation Policy and any sector or donor
standards being adhered to under a particular project; these might for example include OECD/
DAC Principles, the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards, and American
Evaluation Society standards, although this is not an exhaustive list but more can be found in
the bibliography of this manual.
• ACF thematic FSL programme guidelines and manuals should be built into the M&E system.
Box 3.2: Sphere monitoring & evaluation indicators and guidance notes
Key monitoring indicators
1. Information collected for monitoring is timely and useful, is recorded and analysed in an
accurate, logical, consistent, regular and transparent manner and informs ongoing programmes.
2. Systems are in place to ensure regular collection of information in each technical sector and
identify whether the indicators for each Sphere standard are being met.
3. Women, men and children from all affected groups are regularly consulted and involved in
monitoring.
4. Systems are in place enabling a flow of information between the programme, other sectors,
the affected groups, the relevant local authorities, donors and other actors as needed.
Key evaluation indicators
1. The programme is evaluated against stated objectives and agreed minimum standards to
measure overall appropriateness, efficiency, coverage, coherence and impact on the affected
population.
2. Evaluations take account of views and opinions of affected population, and host community if
different.
3. The collection of information for evaluations is independent and impartial.
4. The results of each evaluation are used to improve future practice.
Source: Adapted from: Sphere (2011), Sphere Handbook, Chapter 1. Standards Common to all
sectors, pp.37-39
3.1.5 Minimise error and bias in M&E
Key to ensuring reliable M&E data is the minimizing of error and bias. The latter occurs when
a researcher’s opinion influences data collection or when disproportionate weight is placed on some
aspects of the research. This can undermine the accuracy and precision of research, and can be
minimized by the appropriate use of specific tools and approaches, including:
• Representative sampling and selection – Selection bias should be avoided in selection

criteria by ensuring that the people, places, and time periods selected for data collection are
representative of the project population, location and context. Repeat studies of the most
successful and/or convenient sites or populations to reach should be avoided.
• Neutral/objective questions – Leading questions that push respondents in a particular direction
should be avoided in qualitative and quantitative data collection. Questions should be neutral
in their phrasing. For example, asking “what benefits has this project brought to you and your
family?” pushes the respondent to reply to the affirmative. Using a more neutral question, such
as, “what changes have you seen as a result of the project?” gives the respondent the option of
providing positive or negative feedback. The enumerator then has the option of probing further
to understand the reasons feedback provided.
• Effective data management – More common with quantitative data, poor data management
such as through miscoding or incorrect data entry should be minimized by ensuring data
collectors, those undertaking data entry and data analysis are appropriately trained. A random
selection of data forms collected should also be checked against data entered.
• Effective data analysis – Bias resulting from poor analysis and correlation of data, particularly
quantitative data, can happen in instances of analysis of excessively small sample sizes or ones
not representative of the population. Interpretation of quantitative data on assumptions that are
not tested can also result in error or bias. Where the reasons are not understood for data results
differing to those expected, further qualitative research undertaken can probe into reasons.
• Use of control groups – The use of “control groups” not affected or assisted to compare to
those populations affected by crisis and assisted can give a sense of progress. However, this is
not agreeable with ethical considerations of a humanitarian situation and organisation in terms
of non-provision of assistance where it might be required, as well as availability and interest
amongst those not assisted. (See as well Toolkit 11)
• Triangulation of data and sources – Checking data collected against similar data collected by
other sources in-country and globally can also test for error. For example, data collected by ACF
on nutrition or crop production in a particular locality can be cross-checked against that collected
by other NGOs, by the UN or by Government statistical services in that country to highlight if
there are any differences that need to be followed up. Similarly, data can be cross-checked
against international food security and livelihood databases (see Box 3.4: Global Food Security
and Livelihood Data Sources).
Box 3.3: Nutrition data sources
The following sources can be used to triangulate nutrition data in-country and globally:
• Demographic Health Surveys,

• Multi Indicator Cluster Surveys,
• Other national health and nutrition surveys,
• National nutrition surveillance systems.
• WHO Nutrition Landscape Information System,
• WHO Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Information System,
• Complex Emergency Database (CE-DAT),
• Nutrition in Crisis Information System (NICS),
• Unicef Standing Committee for Nutrition Database (SCN)
Box 3.4: Global food security and livelihood data sources

The following sources can be used to triangulate food security and livelihood data:
• Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET - http://www.fews.net)

• Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS http://www.fao.org/giews/english/index.
htm) Other key publications by FAO include: Food Outlook, Crop Prospects and Food Situation.
• Crop and Food Security Assessment Missions (CFSAMs)
• The Livelihoods Resource Centre (LRC - http://www.livelihoodsrc.dfid.gov.uk/)
• The International Food Policy and Research Institute (http://mobile.ifpri.org/)
• National Government / Ministry databases; most times with the National Ministry of Agriculture.
• Appropriate methods and indicators should be used to ensure appropriate analysis. For
example, to assess food security a number of different methods can be used, such as calculating
the change in the number of livelihood assets owned or accessed by the households, one of
ACF’s core indicators.
• The accuracy of data can be tested by repeating data collection over a period of time,
over a geographic area and a population to show trends and ensure it is representative.
• Lessons learned from data can be captured in a Lesson Learned Log (see Toolkit 18).
3.2 Step 2: Monitor the Application of Codes & Standards

Step 2: Monitor the application of codes & standards
Objective of step: To make sure the relevant codes and standards are appropriately being
applied and adhered to.
Timing: During project design, proposal writing and implementation
Activities:
• Ensure there is clarity on which mandatory codes and standards are being adhered to by the
project
• Ensure there is clarity on which optional codes and standards are being adhered to by the project
As well as adhering to best practices in M&E in line with relevant codes and standards, M&E
activities can also be used to monitor and evaluate a project’s adherence to sector codes and
quality standards. A project is likely to have to adhere to certain mandatory codes and standards,
such as the ACF Charter. Adherence to these needs to be built into the M&E system.
Adherence to government regulations and laws, and sector-specific requirements can also be
built into an M&E system. This can be done by including them in agreements and contracts (e.g.
Memoranda of Understanding), building them into logframes and M&E plans as specific indicators
whose progress can be monitored or evaluated against.
3.3 Step 3: Assess which Cross-cutting Issues to Build into the M&E
System
Step 3: Assess which cross-cutting issues to build into the M&E system
Objective of step: This steps focuses on making sure all cross-cutting issues are recognized,
taken into consideration and built into the M&E system.
Timing: During project design and proposal writing
Activities:
3.1 Ensure access by most vulnerable or marginalized groups is monitored
3.2 Ensure gender issues are monitored
3.3 Ensure consideration of HIV/AIDS is monitored where appropriate
3.4 Ensure consideration of the environment, climate change issues and Disaster Risk
Management (DRM) are monitored where appropriate
Any M&E system should factor in all cross-cutting issues included in programming, including
representation of all groups (with a particular focus on the most vulnerable or marginalized groups),
issues of gender, HIV/AIDS and the environment.
3.3.1 Ensure access by most vulnerable or marginalized groups is

monitored
The collection, analysis, and reporting of data should include a breakdown of the most
vulnerable socio-demographic groups of the population (by gender; by age, such as children
under five, 5–14 year-olds, those aged 60 and over; pregnant and lactating women; and any other
distinctive or marginalized groups e.g. Internally Displaced People, specific ethnic groups, disabled
people or Orphans and other Vulnerable Children -OVCs). This M&E focus on marginalized groups
will help highlight whether their needs are being addressed and inform project decision-making.
3.3.2 Ensure gender issues are monitored

All data collected, analyzed and reported on should be broken down by sex to look at and
address the impact of any unequal power distribution between men and women. Women
may, for example, have less access to or control over resources for themselves and their children,
which should be monitored and addressed by the project. Services focusing solely on women may
similarly result in negative consequences for men missing out, which again should be monitored
and addressed. Activities focusing solely on women, such as livelihoods opportunities, may result
in a backlash towards them by men folk if they feel their role in the home or society is being
undermined; something that can ultimately have negative consequences for the target female
group. Consideration on how to address such issues by sector (e.g. FSL) is detailed in the IASC
Gender Handbook. Given such instances, it is important that sex-disaggregated data be collected
so that any gender-related issues can be addressed.
Gender-sensitive indicators can be used to point out gender-related changes over time, reflecting on
the status and roles of women and men over time, and so assessing gender equity.
Box 3.5: Sample gender sensitive indicators
The following gender-sensitive indicators could be considered:
1. Indicators of participation such as:

• Number of local women’s and men’s groups established
• Membership of groups by sex, and rate of growth or drop-out of membership by sex
• Number of women and men in key decision-making positions
• Socio-economic, age and ethnic make-up of women and men attending meetings
• Level of input by women and men in project planning, implementation and M&E activities
• Number of women and men participating in training
2. Indicators of access:
• Input access and take-up rates by sex (e.g. % of those taking up livelihoods opportunities that
are female/male)
3. Indicators of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice:

• Number of women/men indicating increased knowledge or changed attitude or practice
4. Indicators of benefit:
• Benefits going to women/men by socio-economic class, ethnicity and age (e.g. greater crop
yields)
• Uses made of community benefits, by sex, class, ethnicity and age
• Average household expenditure of female/male headed households
• % of available credit, financial and technical support services going to women/men
Source: CIDA (1996), Guide to Gender-Sensitive Indicators
3.3.3 Ensure consideration of HIV/AIDS is monitored where appropriate

A further group for which socio-demographic data can be disaggregated is People Living with HIV/
AIDS (PLWHAs). For example, in the distribution of food assistance, livelihoods or income generation
support activities, PLWHAs might be a specific target group. Here data should be collected to
highlight whether sufficient support is being provided to cater for the needs of this group and to
ensure that this group is not discriminated against (see pages 44-56 of the IASC Guidelines for
HIV/AIDS Interventions in Emergency Settings). Consideration of groups marginalized on several
fronts, such as HIV and gender, should also be given in programming through considering relevant
frameworks, like WHO and UNAIDS Inter Agency Task Team guides ( see bibliography).
3.3.4 Ensure consideration of the environment, climate change issues

and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) are monitored where appropriate
For activities relating to natural resource management, DRM and climate change adaptation, thematic
indicators are provided in the indicator framework of this manual (see Toolkit 3). Consideration
should be given to collecting, analyzing and reporting on data that reflects the extent to which
climate change issues are being addressed, as mapped out in ACF’s Disaster Risk Management
and Climate Change Guidelines and Policy, and the Hyogo Framework. This could include instances
such as collecting data on activities that improve utilization of scarce resources (e.g. fuel efficient
stoves to reduce firewood consumption), activities that promote Disaster Risk Management (e.g.
reforestation) and that optimize land-use (e.g. planting and cultivation practices).
Similarly, data on how vulnerable or resilient communities are to disasters can be collected in line
with the framework outlined by John Twigg (see bibliography) to assess the effectiveness of DRM
activities.
Chapter Summary
1. M&E ethics and standards refer to a series of considerations in obtaining and handling
information from and about project stakeholders, particularly beneficiaries, which are outlined
in a number of sector standards. These considerations include: Informed consent; Anonymity /
confidentiality; Systematic Inquiry; Competence; Integrity; Respect and cultural sensitivity; Right to
privacy; Responsibility for outputs; Accountability; Omissions; and, Balancing values and cultural
norms. These should all be taken into account when structuring M&E research. It is particularly
important to uphold the principle of “do no harm” in M&E as well as wider project activities.
2. It important to adhere to M&E ethics and standards to ensure the quality, reliability
and therefore credibility of M&E findings. Decision-making based on M&E data can be
compromised if ethical considerations have not been taken into account. In particular, the welfare
of those involved in and affected by M&E should be safeguarded.
3. Key sector standards that should be used to shape project M&E include the ACF Charter,
The Sphere Project Handbook, The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief and theme-specific ACF standards in M&E
including ACF’s Evaluation Policy and Guideline. Requirements of these should be built into the
design of M&E.
4. An M&E system should factor in all cross-cutting issues included in programming,

including representation of all groups (with a particular focus on the most vulnerable or
marginalized groups), issues of gender, HIV/AIDS and the environment. Data on these should
be collected through the M&E system to ensure access by most vulnerable groups is monitored
so that they are not marginalised, and to ensure that issues pertinent to local communities such
as sustaining their environment, are addressed.
ANNEXES
© ACF South Sudan - Rachel Eichholz

Annex 1: How to Undertake a Trend or PESSTLE Analysis Annex 29: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale
Annex 2: Types of Monitoring (HFIAS) Guidance Note
Annex 3: Types of Feedback/Complaint Mechanisms Annex 30: Months of Adequate Household Food
Annex 4: Data Collection Method Types and Sources Provisioning (MAHFP) Guidance Note
Annex 5: Individual Interview Guidance Note Annex 31: Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC)
Annex 6: Household Interview Guidance Note Guidance Note
Annex 7: Focus Group Discussion Guidance Note Annex 32: Market Price Survey Guidance Note
Annex 8: Observation Guidance Note Annex 33: Counting Beneficiaries Guidance Note
Annex 9: After Action Review Annex 34: Baseline Survey Guidance Note
Annex 10: Types of Evaluations Annex 35: Baseline Survey Template
Annex 11: Semi-Structured Interviews Guidance Note Annex 36: Steps for data monitor recruitment and Job
Annex 12: Pair-wise Ranking Guidance Note description
Annex 13: Wealth Ranking Guidance Note Annex 37: Monitoring plan example
Annex 14: Proportional Piling Guidance Note Annex 38: ACF Evaluation ToR Template
Annex 15: Transect Walk Guidance Note Annex 39: Advantages and Disadvantages of Internal vs.
Annex 16: Seasonal Calendar Guidance Note External Evaluations
Annex 17: Venn or Institutional Diagramming Guidance Annex 40: Codes and Standards Overview
Note Annex 41: Inception Report Template
Annex 18: Mapping Analysis Guidance Note Annex 42: Interview Protocol Card
Annex 19: Most Significant Change Guidance Note Annex 43: Establishing a Community-Based Monitoring
Annex 20: Decision Making Analysis Guidance Note System
Annex 21: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Annex 44: Step-by-step Checklist for M&E Activities
Threats (SWOT) Analysis Guidance Note
Annex 22: Community Meetings and Verbal Reporting
Guidance Note
Annex 23: Designing a Logical Framework and Indicators
Annex 24 : Stakeholder Information Needs Matrix
Annex 25: Types of Participation
Annex 26: Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS
Guidance Note
Annex 27: Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS)
Guidance Note
Annex 28: Food Consumption Score Guidance Note
Annex 1: How to Undertake a Trend or PESSTLE Analysis
What is a trend analysis?
A trend is the general direction towards which movement is made. A trend analysis is about assessing
the external operating environment in which an organisation is working, how that environment is
changing and what the implications on the organisation will be.
Key areas in which to undertake a trend analysis are summarised as a PESSTLE1 analysis and
include:
• Politics – What are the major changes happening in the field of politics that could impact the
project (e.g. elections, Government policy or requirements of humanitarian organisations).
• Economics – What are the major economic changes happening that could impact the project
(e.g. changing prices).
• Social – What are the major social changes happening that could impact a project (e.g. changing
demographics, tension between social groups).
• Security – What are the major security changes happening that could impact a project (e.g.
security threats limiting access to a project site).
• Technology – What are the major technology changes happening that could impact a project
(e.g. increasing use of SMS messaging for communication with beneficiaries).
• Legislative – What are the major legislative changes happening that could impact a project (e.g.
legal position of NGOs in-country).
• Environment – What are the major environmental changes happening that could impact a
project (e.g. effects of climate change).
Beyond looking at the above, you can also undertake a trend analysis to consider the following:
• Internal trends – What are the major internal changes happening in a project or within ACF that
might impact a project (e.g. changes in structure or increasing focus on certain areas of work).
• Competitor/Comparator/Sector trends – What are the major changes happening in projects
undertaken by other organisations similar to that being carried out by ACF in the area (e.g.
change of cash transfer modality from paper voucher to smart cards).
How can a trend analysis be facilitated?

To facilitate a trend analysis it is best to get as diverse a group as possible (including decision-
makers and technical experts) to brainstorm what the key trends shaping a project’s operating
environment are. 2
_______________________
1
PESSTLE = Politics, Economics, Social, Security, Technology, Legislative, Environmental
2
The following sources can provide some useful insight into trends for the project: HPG, Feinstein Centre, IRIN, ALNAP - For
example, ALNAP’s “State of The Humanitarian System”, Human Development Reports, OECD DAC reports, EIU
How can a trend analysis feed into operational planning?
Step 1: A SWOT3 Analysis can be undertaken against each trend identified in the PESSTLE
analysis to assess the extent to which an organisation is able to deal with the trend and therefore
what, if any, subsequent action is required. For example, each political trend identified should be
ranked as a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat or Neutral:
• Strength – i.e. that the project/organisation is able to deal with a trend well, no action is required.
• Weakness – i.e. that the project/organisation is not well placed to deal with this, and therefore
mitigating actions may be required to avoid this trend
potentially turning into a threat for the organization. Politics
• Opportunity – i.e. that this trend presents an opportunity Economics Strength

for the project/organisation. Action should be taken to take
advantage of this opportunity. Social Weakness
• Threat – i.e. that this trend presents a threat to the project/
Security Opportunity
organisation. Action should be taken to mitigate the threat
before it damages the project/organization.
Technology Threat
• Neutral – i.e. that this trend presents no implications for
the project/organisation and therefore no action is required; Legislative Neutral
consider potentially ongoing monitoring in case the issue
becomes an opportunity or threat. Environmental
Step 2: Agreeing actions required. Once trends have been classified as Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats or Neutral, actions that should be taken need to be agreed upon for those
trends classified as Weaknesses, Opportunities or Threats.
Step 3: Prioritising action required. Those

trends classified as Weaknesses, Opportunities Trend ranking
or Threats should be prioritised to ensure
those which are the most urgent/important are X Low urgency and X High urgency and
Importance
high importance
– high importance
–
addressed first. Trends should be ranked in order this trend should be this trend should be
of importance/urgency. That can either be done addressed third addressed first
as a prioritised list highlighting which actions
should be dealt with first and potentially require
more resources to do so, or they can be plotted
on an urgency/importance grid as demonstrated
in the diagram. X Low urgency and X High urgency and
low importance
– low importance
–
this trend should be this trend should be
Step 4: Agreeing resourcing. For each action, addressed last addressed second
resources to achieve that action should also be
discussed as an approximate (i.e. approximate Urgency
rounded numbers in terms of budget, people and
other resources). Responsibility for carrying out these actions should be allocated.
Note: All these trends will be relevant for the whole project, although some may be specific to parts
of it. As such, prioritised actions should shape the project’s overall plan.
What should be the outputs of a trend analysis?

The output of a trend analysis should be a list of trends against each area of PESSTLE, which have
been categorised as Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats/Neutral, actions against those
classed as Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats are each given a prioritisation ranking. The table
below shows an example of how this can be done.
To ensure there is no duplication of trends and to condense the list, once the full list has been agreed
upon it should be reviewed and clustered – i.e. those trends which are very similar should be
grouped into one overall trend.
PESTLE analysis Trends SWOT(N) Action required Prioritisation

categorisation
Politics • Trend A •S
• Trend B etc •W etc
Economics • Trend A
• Trend B etc
Security • Trend A
• Trend B etc
Social • Trend A
• Trend B etc
Technological • Trend A
• Trend B etc
Legislative • Trend A
• Trend B etc
Environmental • Trend A
• Trend B etc
(Sector-specific) • Trend A
• Trend B etc
(Internal) • Trend A
• Trend B etc
Annex 2: Types of Monitoring
There are different types of monitoring, including the following in order of
importance for projects:
• Results / progress monitoring – Assesses the effect and change brought about by the project,
in terms of the three levels of results (Outputs, Outcomes and Impact – see Annex 1). To follow
up on these results, a baseline against which to establish progress should be in place (e.g.
comparing Pre-Harvest and Post-Harvest monitoring results). Progress against outputs and
outcomes can be gauged through monitoring, while impact (both intended and unintended,
positive and negative) is usually assessed through evaluations. Assessing the extent of progress
against each level of results allows for adjustments to be made where required. For example,
monitoring lower level results such as outputs, allows project managers to assess whether these
are contributing towards higher level results (outcomes and impact), and if not, what alteration in
inputs and activities can be applied to correct this.
• Process or activity monitoring – Assesses if resources or inputs (e.g. funds, goods in kind,
human resources) are being used at the planned rate, and activities are happening in line
with activity plans to delivery outputs. This is particularly important for managers in terms of
determining resource allocation.
• Financial monitoring – Looks at whether income raised and expenditure spent are in line
with project plans, as well as assessing actual cost for inputs and activities against those in
the budget. This is done through budget follow up in liaison with the Finance and Admin team.
• Beneficiary monitoring – Assesses beneficiary perception of and satisfaction with a project.
The Feedback or Complaints Mechanisms (see Annex 17) can help track perceptions of the
beneficiaries. As the key stakeholders in an intervention, this allows them to participate in
the project and provide feedback which is crucial to a project’s success. Gathering indirect
beneficiaries’ and non–beneficiaries’ feedback can also gauge success of a project.
• Context monitoring – Assesses any changes in the context in which the project is being carried
out. Changes in context may affect assumptions and risks held by the project. Surveillance of
the FSL context is a particular type of context monitoring. Context monitoring is about the wider
operating context of a project including the funding, political, security and legislative context that
can affect project implementation or the ability of the target population to respond to it. Changes
in context may require a revision of project assumptions or risks, and potentially even planned
results.
• Market monitoring – This assesses changes in markets, such as availability and price of goods.
This helps determine whether the markets are able to provide the goods and services required
by a population or whether the population is able to access these with the support of an ACF
intervention. Market monitoring allows for assessment on whether an intervention is required
where a market is not meeting needs, or whether an existing intervention is having the desired
effect on markets. This is a key part of surveillance and project monitoring, e.g. cash transfers.
• Compliance monitoring – Assesses the extent to which a project is in compliance with ACF’s
mandate and ACF codes (e.g. ACF International Charter), agreements and contracts (e.g.
donor requirements and Memoranda of Understanding), key sector standards (e.g. Sphere),
sector codes (e.g. Red Cross and NGO Code of Conduct, and People in Aid), Government
regulations and laws and ethical standards. Indicators against these requirements can form part
of a logframe.
• Risk or assumption monitoring – Assesses whether there is any change in assumptions made
about the project and risks to it. Assumptions are about the external operating environment;
this is linked to context monitoring. Whereas risks are when assumptions about the external
operating environment do not hold; they can also be internal. Indicators to track change in risks
or assumptions can be used.
• Capacity monitoring – Assesses the sustainability of capacity built through the project, this can
either be in households, communities or organizations, and is often as part of wider programme
or organizational monitoring.
Annex 3: Types of Feedback/Complaint Mechanisms

Feedback/complaint mechanisms will vary depending on the project type and what is appropriate
for the context. There are different options for how feedback is sought, with some examples listed
below. Typically a combination of the below mechanisms is the best approach, as mixed methods
typically have a higher likelihood of success.
Community feedback/complaint mechanisms

• Feedback (comment) box – Community and other stakeholders (e.g. volunteers) can submit
written feedback or complaints through this. This can be a sealed box located in a community
center or at a branch office, which should be checked regularly. This method is limited in
confidentiality, (even if people do not record their names with the feedback, they can be identified
when submitting them), and would be inappropriate if local literacy levels are very low.
• Regular community meetings – In instances where it is culturally acceptable to discuss
feedback/complaints publically, this is a good forum for community feedback, but may be less
appropriate for sensitive issues.
• Designated “feedback days” for the local office to receive feedback – These are fixed days
for which stakeholders are informed and the local project office prepared to receive “walk-in”
feedback. It is important to properly prepare. A sign-up sheet for appointments may be advisable
if there is a risk of crowds gathering at the office.
• Information booths – These can be open regularly in project implementation areas that may not
have access to the local office, making project representation more accessible and encouraging
information sharing and feedback.
• Monitoring visits focused on stakeholder feedback – Field visits can be a valuable opportunity
to get stakeholder feedback firsthand. Typically, this is best done through direct dialogue with
stakeholders. Stakeholder inclusion during the visit, either within their own communities or to
other communities, can encourage feedback to be expressed more readily, but care should be
given that other stakeholders do not feel inhibited providing feedback with the presence of their
peers.
• Focus group discussions – These can be a useful method to elicit feedback during monitoring
visits or self-assessment exercises.
• Online feedback – Internet access and literacy levels would be a limiting factor, but this is
particularly useful for feedback from stakeholders such as staff and partner organizations, and
it can readily be shared with other stakeholders, such as country or international headquarters.
• Posted mail or phone feedback – Access can again be a limiting factor, as can associated
costs, including postage or establishing a designated phone line with trained people to answer
calls and record feedback. The costs of a “designated” line can be reduced by using an existing
phone line, but designating set hours for receiving feedback calls, (similar to the open-office
“feedback days” discussed above).
• A combination of the above mechanisms – As with many things, mixed methods have a
higher likelihood of success. Using multiple feedback channels allows the project to draw on
the benefits of each.
Staff feedback/complaint mechanisms
• Regular project team meetings – Staff team meetings can allow issues to be identified and
directly addressed in an open and transparent manner. For more sensitive issues, individual
meetings between project team members and their supervisor or a senior manager might be
more appropriate.
• Direct access to senior managers – An “open-door” policy where stakeholders feel they can
approach and discuss concerns with senior management is a good practice, especially within the
project team itself. This can especially be useful for sensitive complaints that stakeholders feel
uncomfortable sharing in a more public forum. However, with large numbers, this can be a strain
on time and human resources. Letting stakeholders know how they can set up appointments
with senior management can assist this process.
• After action reviews – This can be a very powerful tool for getting feedback and building a
common understanding and approach. Four key questions should be reviewed by the project
team when undertaking an AAR:
1. What was planned?

2. What actually happened?
3. What went well?
4. What could have been better?
• Self-assessment – This exercise involves key stakeholders and can be done through periodic
reviews or a mid-term evaluation.
• Individual feedback by email/phone/post – As with community feedback mechanisms, these
channels can also be used for staff feedback.
Feedback/Complaint Form
Feedback/Complaint Form
1. DETAILS OF PERSON PROVIDING FEEDBACK OR LODGING COMPLAINT - to be filled in
by the person providing feedback
Name:
Address:
Other information:
2. FEEDBACK/COMPLAINT - to be filled in by the person providing feedback
Type of Feedback: (Project staff to include list of categories of feedback agreed based on the
issue, sector, district, user etc)
Description of feedback/complaint:
Description of expected outcome / response:
3. SIGNATURE - to be signed by person providing feedback
By signing and submitting this feedback, I accept the procedure by which the feedback
will be proc¬essed and dealt with. I have been informed of the terms for appeal.
Date: Signature:
4. RESPONSE- to be filled by staff
Response / remedy to the feedback:
Response / remedy was: (Delete as appropriate) Accepted / Not accepted / Not appealed /
Appealed to: ___________
Date: Staff name: Signature:
5. RECEIPT - to be filled by staff and cut off and given to person providing feedback
Feedback number: (Unique, number):
Expected date of response: Place to receive response:
Staff Signature: Date:
Annex 4: Data Collection Method Types and Sources
The following summarizes key data collection methods and tools used in monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) in alphabetical order. This list is not exhaustive, as tools and techniques are emerging and
evolving in the M&E field. For each, some key sources are included for further information.
Method Overview and Methodology When to use Method

After-Action A facilitated discussion that focuses on four For internal reflection,
Review questions: review and lesson
learning following a
• What was planned? specific activity, an
event or a project.
• What actually happened?
• What went well?
• What could have been better?
Case Study A detailed descriptive narrative of individuals, Useful through-out a
communities, events, programmes, time project to document
periods, or a story (discussed below). They examples of project
are particularly useful in evaluating complex achievements. Useful
situations and exploring qualitative impact. to exemplify specific
A case study only helps to illustrate data and activities or effects on
find commonalities; only when combined individual households,
(triangulated) with other case studies or particularly for
methods can one extrapolate key principles. inclusion in internal or
To write a case study of a project, consider the donor reports or for
following questions: communications / media
What type of project is it? messaging.
What does it aim to achieve?
How will it achieve this aim?
What will the final output be?
How many people are being assisted, and what
proportion of the total catchment area is this?
Why was this community selected?
Case Study What is the impact on beneficiaries and how Useful through-out a
(contd) was it achieved? When profiling an individual project to document
beneficiary consider: Personal details (e.g. examples of project
Name, age, family size, who is head of HH, achievements. Useful
family circumstances, current income, current to exemplify specific
sources of income and coping strategies); activities or effects on
Context of the person›s life: What major individual households,
changes have happened in their life in the past particularly for
5 months? What assistance is the beneficiary inclusion in internal or
receiving? Why? How does the beneficiary feel donor reports or for
he/she is benefiting? What difference is this communications / media
assistance making to the beneficiary? What messaging.
hopes does he/she have for the future?
Checklist A list of items used for validating or inspecting Useful reminders for
that procedures/steps have been followed, project teams that have
or the presence of examined behaviors. multiple priorities.
Checklists allow for systematic review that can
be useful in setting benchmark standards and
establishing periodic measures of improvement.
Community Book A community maintained document of a project Useful where high
belonging to a community. It can include written levels of illiteracy to
records, pictures, drawings, songs or whatever help communities
community members feel is appropriate. Where monitor and document
communities have low literacy rates, a memory change.
team is identified whose responsibility it is
to relate the written record to the rest of the
community in keeping with their oral traditions.
Community A form of public meeting open to all community Useful to provide
Interviews / members. Interaction is between the information to
Meetings participants and the interviewer, who presides communities for project
over the meeting and asks questions following kick-off, monitoring and
a prepared interview guide. verbal reporting back.
Desk / Document A review of documents (secondary data) can Research before a
/ Literature review provide a cost effective and timely baseline or project starts and as
other information and a historical perspective part of an evaluation.
of the project. This is a key first step in any
data collection process. It includes written
documentation, (i.e. project records and
reports, administrative databases, training
materials, correspondence, legislation, and
policy documents), as well as videos, electronic
data or photos. However, it can be difficult
to assess the reliability and validity of some
sources.
Ethnographic In-depth interviewing of a limited number of In depth research into
interviewing individuals to provide a good picture of how a the impact of an event.
particular event has affected them. Helps to put
human detail into a larger picture.
Focus group Focused discussion with a small group (usually To explore issues in
discussion 8 to 12 people) of participants to record more detail as part of
attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs pertinent research on why certain
to the issues being examined. A moderator things are happening or
introduces the topic and uses a prepared understand change.
interview guide to lead the discussion and elicit
discussions, opinions, and reactions. A low-cost
and efficient means of collecting beneficiary
views in a quicker but less rigorous way than a
formal survey.
Interviews An open-ended (semi-structured) interview Tend to be used as part
is a technique for questioning that allows of a quantitative survey
the interviewer to probe and pursue topics with individuals or
of interest in depth (rather than just “yes/ households.
no” questions). A closed-ended (structured)
interview systematically follows carefully
organized questions (prepared in advance
in an interviewer’s guide) that only allow a
limited range of answers, such as “yes/no,”
or expressed by a rating/number on a scale.
Replies can easily be numerically coded for
statistical analysis.
Key informant An interview with a person having special When seeking specific
interviews information about a particular topic. These information (e.g. from
interviews are generally conducted in an open- experts).
ended or semi-structured fashion.
Laboratory Precise measurement of specific objective Resource quality-
testing phenomenon, for example, for iron content, checks or medical
seed, food or water quality testing. checks.
Mini-survey Data collected from interviews with 25 to Seeks information on
50 individuals, usually selected using non- specific issues using a
probability sampling techniques. Structured small sample.
questionnaires with a limited number of
closed-ended questions are used to generate
quantitative data that can be collected and
analyzed quickly.
Most Significant A participatory monitoring technique based on To get a detailed
Change (MSC) stories about important or significant changes, qualitative overview
rather than indicators. They give a rich picture of change faced by
of the impact of development work and provide individuals/households
the basis for dialogue over key objectives and over time.
the value of development programs.
Observation A record of what observers see and hear at Useful for project
a specified site, using a detailed observation monitoring by staff or
form. Observation may be of physical donors.
surroundings, activities, or processes. It is a
good technique for collecting data on behavior
patterns and physical conditions. It is a very
useful method, especially for triangulating the
information from other sources. It can also be
used as a primary data collection method (e.g.
observing food distributions) but needs to be
combined with other data collection methods
(such as interviews) to ensure the observations
are not misinterpreted.
On-line survey Limited to those with internet access. Allows Where target
quick and cheap surveys that can be used to populations have
identify issues for further analysis, e.g. through internet access.
www.surveymonkey.com
Participant A technique first used by anthropologists; it For in-depth
observation requires the researcher to spend considerable anthropological
time with the group being studied (days) and research.
to interact with them as a participant in their
community. This method gathers insights that
might otherwise be overlooked, but is time-
consuming.
Participatory A form of participatory self evaluation which can Similar to AAR can
Project Review be tailored to different timeframes and contexts be used for internal
according to need. It combines participatory review, but includes
methodologies, drawing from Empowerment beneficiaries.
Evaluation, and Most Significant Change.
Source: Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations
of Empowerment Evaluation. Sage
Publications. Thousand Oaks, London, New
Delhi. http://evaluation.blogspot.com/ and
http://wwwstatic.kern.org/gems/region4/
DavidFettermanPresentation.pdf
Participatory This uses community engagement techniques Useful throughout the
rapid (or rural) to understand community views on a particular project at assessment,
appraisal (PRA) issue. They enable those from outside the planning, monitoring
community to capture knowledge that is held by and evaluation phases
the community. PRA tools can be thought of as to get more in-depth
helping communities to overtly analyse issues information about a
and to translate their analysis into a format that community.
those outside the community can understand.
They are usually done quickly and intensively
– over a 2 to 3-week period. Examples of
PRA techniques include (see Annex 33 -
Establishing a Community-Based Monitoring
System Guidance Note and Annexes 40-51):
• Calendars (seasonal, 24 hour, multi-
annual) and other calendars
• Proportional piling
• Ranking (pair-wise, wealth, seeds, coping
strategies, etc)
• Transect walk
• Mapping (wealth, hazard, mobility,
social, resource, risk, network, influence,
relationship etc)
• Venn diagrams
• Time lines/histories
• Stakeholder analysis
Questionnaire A data collection instrument containing a set Useful at assessment,
of questions organized in a systematic way, as monitoring and
well as a set of instructions to the enumerator/ evaluation phases.
interviewer about how to ask the questions
(typically used in a survey).
Rapid appraisal A quick cost-effective technique to gather For quick assessments.
(or assessment) data systematically for decision-making,
using qualitative and quantitative methods,
such as site visits, observations, and sample
surveys. This technique shares many of the
characteristics of participatory appraisal (such
as triangulation and multi-disciplinary teams)
and recognizes that indigenous knowledge is a
critical consideration for decision-making.
Seasonal A graphical presentation of the months in which At planning stage when
calendar food and cash crop production and key food planning activities for
and income acquisition strategies take place, the year.
also showing key seasonal periods such as
the rains, periods of peak illness and the lean
season.
Source: The Practitioners’ Guide to the
Household Economy Approach; Regional
Hunger and Vulnerability Programme (RHVP),
Save the Children UK (SC UK) and the Food
Economy Group (F.E.G.). http://www.docstoc.
com/docs/3466254/THE-PRACTITIONERS-
GUIDE-TO-THE-HOUSEHOLD-ECONOMY-
APPROACH-The-Food
Statistical data A review of population censuses, research At planning, monitoring
review studies, and other sources of statistical data. and evaluation phases.
Story-telling/ Obtaining participants experiences of change For monitoring and
collection by collating their observations of an event or evaluation. Can also
a series of events. A success story illustrates be helpful in setting
a project’s impact by detailing an individual’s qualitative baselines.
positive experiences in his or her own words. A
learning story focuses on the lessons learned
through an individual’s positive and negative
experiences (if any) with a project. The Most
Significant Change technique is an example of
this method.
Survey Systematic collection of information from Useful at assessment,
a defined population, usually by means of and monitoring and
interviews or questionnaires administered to a evaluation phases.
sample of units in the population (e.g., person,
beneficiaries, adults, etc.). An enumerated
survey is administered by someone trained
(an enumerator) to record responses from
respondents. A self-administered survey is a
written survey completed by the respondent,
either in a group setting or in a separate
location. Respondents must be literate.
Visual techniques These include maps (e.g. zoning maps), At assessment,
diagrams, calendars, timelines, and other planning, monitoring
visual displays to examine the study topics. and evaluation phases.
Participants can be prompted to construct
visual responses to questions posed by the
interviewers, for example, by constructing
a map of their local area. This technique is
especially effective as a participatory technique
where verbal methods can be problematic due
to low literacy or mixed language populations
or in situations where the desired information
is not easily expressed in either words or
numbers.
Zoning The mapping of differences in geography, At assessment and
agro-ecology and types of livelihoods present in planning phases.
the area to be surveyed, to facilitate analysis of
FSL-related challenges that may occur in an at-
risk area as well as consider response options.
Adapted from: Buchanan-Smith, M. & Cosgrave, J. (2010) Evaluation of Humanitarian Action,

ALNAP
Annex 5: Individual Interview Guidance Note
What is an individual interview?
An individual interview is an interview with one person, e.g. beneficiary.
When to conduct an individual interview?

Individual interviews can be used during assessments or surveys.
How to conduct an individual interview?

An individual interview can mean a ten-minute conversation during an informal visit or a longer
and more structured discussion, using a series of questions on a particular topic. Whatever the
case, focus on essential information and build the interview around current concerns, for example,
profiling and needs assessment, tracking changes, or seeking feedback.
Aim to interview people at times that are safe and convenient for both staff and interviewees, e.g.
during lunch time, market days etc. The time your interviewee has available should determine how
long your interview lasts.
Make sure that people understand why you wish to talk to them and what you will do with the
information they share.
Never use people’s names when using information without their permission or that of their guardian.
Start with questions that are factual and relatively straightforward to answer. Move on to more
sensitive issues, if necessary, only when the person you are interviewing is more at ease.
Make sure people know that you value their time and participation. Don’t end the interview too
abruptly. Take responsibility for the effect on your interviewee if sensitive issues are discussed.
Record, store, and use information safely.
Tips for Interviews

• Locate elders/leaders before undertaking any interviews, explain who you are and what you are
doing, and ask their permission to interview.
• Ask individuals’ permission to interview them and thank them afterwards.
• Where possible, prioritize discussions with women and children, and other people likely to be
marginalized or experiencing particular difficulties.
• Try and interview at least three families in each location in order to cross-check the information
received.
• Ensure that people at the edge of a camp or site where the poorest families might be living, are
included.
• Avoid large crowds following around if possible, since this is likely to intimidate (potential)
respondents.
• Where required, ensure a good translator.
Annex 6: Household Interview Guidance Note
Duration
Approx. 1 hour for each interview
Materials
Notepads and pens.
Purpose
Involving one or more members of the household, it is a way of understanding the functioning of the
household. It gives physical insights of surroundings linked to answers of questions asked.
When to use
Useful for monitoring surveys (e.g. Baseline and Endline surveys, etc.).
Process
Step 1: Introduce yourself clearly and present objectives of the interview, without raising hopes of
something coming as a consequence of the interview. Answer questions that household might ask.
Ask to ensure that time and location are suitable.
Step 2: If the man is with the woman and he is dominating, clarify in a subtle tone that the
perspectives of the woman on certain issues are crucial. Alternatively, choose to address certain
issues individually at the end of the interview. Always ensure equal participation between the man
and woman and different classes within the household. Remember that intra-household participation
can also be challenging.
Tips for the interviewer

When entering the home, be happy to meet the people, but do not appear inquisitive, else you will
be viewed suspicious. Always allow a prelude of ordinary discussions (greetings, news, and so
forth) before going into the interview. Depending on the objective of the interview, it is important to
focus observation on powerless family members (the physical appearance of children and women),
environment (food storage, house condition, and so forth).
Annex 7: Focus Group Discussion Guidance Note
Duration
1 to 2 hours
Materials
Prepare in advance the questions you want to ask, ensure the discussion is open. Papers, notepads,
markers and pens, or consider sticks and stones when pens and papers are not suitable. Ensure
beans or stones for proportional piling or when ranking exercises are available.
Purpose
A fairly small discussion group (6 to 10 people) led by a facilitator to provide a better understanding
and description of several local perspectives in a community or local organization. It can be single
or mixed gender but single is recommended if you want women, in particular to speak openly. The
same is true for different social classes such as age, caste, religious, wealth and ethnic groups.
Do not raise hopes of receiving assistance as a consequence of an interview. It can be useful to
ascertain:
• Locally defined priorities.
• Resource awareness and environmental interests.
• Gender perspectives.
Objectives
• Cover maximum range of relevant topics of the context, or less topics but in detail.
• Gather concrete and detailed accounts of participants’ experiences.
• Explore participants’ feelings and opinions in depth.
When to use
Useful in setting up community M&E systems, assessing changes over time and reviewing findings.
Process
Step 1: Define key issues you want to discuss and develop open-ended questions for an unstructured
discussion around those issues.
Step 2: Often, it is good that each participant makes an individual, uninterrupted statement of
introduction in the beginning.
Some tips for the facilitator

• Introduce the initial topic followed by unstructured discussion.
• Introduce second topic based mainly on points that have already been raised.
• Allow discussion to come to an end on its own with a subtle intervention to direct it to the point
if necessary.
• Ensure that everyone is participating and avoid closed questions.
• Hold off comments that do not quite fit but reintroduce them at a logical later point, i.e. “I recall
that some of you mentioned something a little different earlier and I wonder how that fits into
what we are discussing now”.
• End interview with final summary.
The following are examples of organizational questions for a vegetable association. These can be
adapted when appropriate.
• What is the purpose of the vegetable association?

• What resources does it have? Who supports it?
• How does the association make decisions?
• How do responsibilities for men and women in the association vary?
Annex 8: Observation Guidance Note

What is observation?
Observation is not a participatory tool as it is done discretely and only by the extension agent. It is
only mentioned in this manual to highlight its importance, particularly in contexts where psychosocial
situations ranging from stress, depression, trauma and so forth are eminent. It is also a reminder to
raise the fact that observation is often helpful if it is planned.
Materials
It is suggested in some cases, to draft a list containing a couple of issues that the team wants to
particularly follow and observe.
Purpose
As an additional tool to the direct approach to data collection, it captures sensitive aspects of topics
discussed and provides physical accounts to analyze.
Objective
To gather additional and sensitive information without necessarily talking to the affected people.
When to use observation

For on-site monitoring purposes, e.g. on-site distribution, pre-harvest crop assessment, etc.
Process
Try to take a walk and have a look at the surroundings, sometimes discussing sporadically but not
taking notes and not making people think that you have a particular purpose in mind. Hold casual
discussions.
Personal Observation Example

Personal observation of the physical condition of the local surroundings, condition of crops,
livestock, the physical appearance of people and their living conditions, the interactions between
people, market dynamics, etc.
Annex 9: After Action Review
What is “After Action Review”?
After Action Reviews (AARs) are often used after an intervention as a simple tool to encourage
reflection and learning on how the intervention was carried out, what went well and what less so.
They are based on the principle of “no attribution, no retribution” to ensure that the focus of the
exercise is on lesson learning rather than a tool highlighting things that went less well.
“After-action reviews are sometimes seen as an alternative to evaluation for organisational lesson
learning. However they are also a good tool for humanitarian evaluations as they may identify
learning that would not emerge in key informant interviews as staff have not yet had time to reflect on
their experience and gain explicit rather than implicit learning from their experience. They also help
to emphasize that staff in the field are sources of learning for the evaluators.” An AAR conducted
at the start of an evaluation can help quickly focus on the key process issues and areas of concern
to field staff.
Who should participate?

An AAR is typically a tool to be used internally in an organisation, with the project team participating
to reflect on how the intervention went. Bringing in other stakeholders can make the discussion
and analysis richer, however, if the project team feels it is no longer a “safe” environment in which
to openly reflect, it may be more advisable to stick to the core team. A separate AAR with broader
stakeholder can then be held, if necessary.
How is an After Action Review carried out?

An AAR will usually last half to a full day, depending on the size of the intervention to be discussed,
its complexity and the number of people involved. Ideally it should be facilitated by someone outside
of the project team. It should be held in an environment where participants can sit around in a circle
for discussion.
The AAR should focus on answering five simple questions:
1. What was the objective/intent of the intervention?

2. What actually happened?
3. What went well?
4. What could have been better?
5. What would we do differently next time?
To ensure lessons are learned from this exercise, it is important that findings are documented and
fed back into future planning. Lessons learned can be documented in the project Lesson Learned
Log (see Toolkit 18) and an Action Log (see Toolkit 15) is a useful way to ensure actions are taken
as a result of the reflections.
Annex 10: Types of Evaluations
Evaluations can be divided into a number of different categories. These include:
Evaluation types depending on timing:
• Mid-term evaluations – These are formative evaluations to assess performance against plans
and whether any external or internal factors changed requiring an alteration in plans. They
are undertaken half-way through project implementation to assess whether any changes are
required for the remainder of the project’s life cycle.
• End-of-project evaluations – These are summative, and are undertaken at the end of a project
to assess performance against intended objectives. These tend to be externally led to allow for
an independent third party analysis.
• Impact evaluations – These are conducted some time after project activities cease to assess
long-term changes achieved relative to a project’s goal and purpose, and the sustainability of
the project.
Evaluations by approach/methodology:
• Project/programme/policy evaluations – Assesses achievements of individual projects etc.
against their objectives, within their given resources.
• Meta-evaluations – These are designed to aggregate findings or draw out common findings
from a series of evaluations, so that an organization can address these. Meta-evaluations are
a key part of ACF’s Evaluation Policy and Guideline and are encouraged on a regular basis.
• Synthesis evaluations – These pull together findings from a number of evaluations.
• Real-time evaluations (RTEs) – These are conducted during a project’s implementation to
get real-time analysis of progress against higher-level objectives and facilitate immediate
recommendations on changes to the project to improve implementation.
• Thematic evaluations – Focuses on one thematic area, such as cash or gender, across a
number of projects, and look to common findings or trends. A specific type is cluster evaluations
which focus on thematic clusters.
• Cost-benefit analysis – This is an economic tool used to compare the benefits against
the costs of a project or activity. It values the economic benefits of a project to demonstrate
improvements in human welfare and can supplement other evaluation methods to determine
changes in populations.
Evaluation types by stakeholders involved:
• External evaluations – These are conducted by evaluators who are not part of the project team
and are often independent consultants, to provide an objective assessment of performance.
These tend to focus on accountability and evaluators are recruited by tender.
• Internal or self evaluations – There are two levels of internal evaluations. One is similar to
external evaluations undertaken by staff that are not part of the project. The other is undertaken
by staff working on the project. They tend to focus on learning objectives. While cheaper than
external evaluations, and helping to build staff ownership of a project, they may be seen as
lacking in credibility given conflict of interest.
• Joint evaluations – These are undertaken by a number of organizations. They tend to be
useful in humanitarian contexts where interagency learning is the rationale or where attribution
of impact by different projects is difficult. While costs can be shared, they carry additional costs
of coordination.
The majority of evaluations should be highly participatory with sizeable input from beneficiaries
and other stakeholders. These can get to the heart of whether needs are being met, but are more
resource intense, both in terms of time and cost. However, they can result in longer term savings
by virtue of better assessing the extent to which needs are met. Evaluations should thus be as
participatory as possible. Where time and money are constrained, or beneficiary access is difficult,
evaluations based on staff interviews and cross-checking participatory monitoring data and previous
evaluations is an alternative.
Annex 11: Semi-Structured Interviews Guidance Note

Overview
The technique of semi-structured interviews consists of permitting the people to express their
point of view while guiding the logic and the subject of discussion without imposing a response (as
opposed to ‘quantitative’ questionnaires where the questions are closed).
Purpose
The semi-structured interview is a method of acquiring knowledge of the context and of specifying
the hypotheses concerning the vulnerability of the populations.
Process
It involves organized discussions with a group of people and/or individuals. The subjects of discussion
are predetermined and the groups are organized according to the subject to be addressed. For
example, themes of food habits, like the coverage of food needs are preferentially addressed to a
group of women. The group of women is composed of 5 to 7 people including elderly women and
women having small children.
The questions are asked during the interview which appear informal and non-conventional but which
should be structured and guided. Using a list or a guide, the team asks open ended questions on
the subjects to be addressed. The guide is established according to the objectives of the interview
and the context of intervention. For example, the guide below has been prepared for a follow-up
interview of food distributions with Liberian refugees residing in the Ivory Coast.
Otherwise, new subjects are addressed little by little during the development of the analysis (the
guides are only semi-structured, not strict). The information collected can be either quantitative or
qualitative (hypothesis, proposals).
Key Points in using Semi-structured Interviews

Use the 6 reference points:
- Who? - What? -Why?
- When? - Where? -How?
Estimate the response: will it be….
- A fact? - An opinion? - A rumor?
Estimate the responses:
- Suppose that... - But why?... - Please develop your idea...
- Is there anything you want to add? ...
The size of the group of people should not exceed 10 to 15 individuals; often, it is preferable to
organize discussions with several groups during a short period (1 to 2 hours) rather than one group
composed of numerous individuals, during which the conversations could become long and difficult
to maintain on the intended subjects.
The discussions allow the rapid identification of the people having an ‘objective’ knowledge of one
of the addressed subjects or those who are dynamic and involved in the community. These people
are qualified as ‘resource people.’ The pursuit of interviews or the deepening of the subject can
be realized through these people. Even so, in certain contexts, cultural habits or even the political
situation are such that only a few people will speak during the interviews. In this case, it is important,
where possible, to develop semi-structured interviews with people individually.
The information obtained from group interviews is interesting to compare with that obtained from the
heads of families during the family visits. It is especially important at this level to plan discussions
whenever possible with the husband as well as the wife.
In certain cases, it can quickly and clearly seem that the discussion drifts off course, and that the
interview will produce nothing in relation to the starting objectives. In this case it is preferable to bring
it to a rapid close so as to not lose time. This should nevertheless be done in a ‘diplomatic’ fashion,
without leaving the group feeling as though the discussion had been useless.
When to use
For project assessments, as part of monitoring surveys or in follow-up to surveys to further
investigate findings.
The art of asking questions

To prevent the introduction of a bias, it is necessary to avoid:
• Closed or directed questions: Instead of ‘Do you do business in Manila?’ ask ‘Where do you
do your business?’ In this way the response is not limited to yes or no, and a more complete
explanation is solicited.
• Implicit presumptions: ‘What is your basic food, rice or millet?’ If it is neither rice nor millet, the
person will probably correct the interviewer in the majority of cases. But out of courtesy some
people will respond with one or the two possibilities in error.
• Vague questions: ‘Is it difficult to draw water?’ If you are referring to the physical difficulty of this
activity, your interviewees will perhaps refer to the time used for this chore.
• Unknown units of measure: ‘How many liters of water do you use per day?’ The liter is not a
systematically known unit. It is preferential to identify the local units of measures known and if
necessary to later translate them into liters.
Tips on Do’s and Don’ts
Do’s Don’ts
• Prepare a list of subjects to address. Write Accept the first response as evidence.
them up as a guide for use during the interview. Ask closed questions (yes/no responses).
Interrupt the ‘resource’ people.
• Remember that the interview is structured by
Question a ‘resource person’ showing
the team.
hesitation.
• Present the team members and clearly explain Question a busy person too long.
the objectives. Show agreement or disagreement with the
• Relax the conversation – be concise in the responses.
questions (one idea per question). Ask questions composed of more than one
idea.
• Allow all the team members to ask questions. Let it be known to a person that verification is
• Develop the subjects using keys of semi- necessary.
structured interviews. Ask delicate questions in front of several
people.
• Take on a neutral attitude, listen attentively Make value judgments on the conditions of life
and note what is ‘not said’. or the food proposed.
• Take notes during and after the interview. Act in a manner inappropriate to the situation
(attitude).
• Choose the people in such a way as to obtain
diverse points of view (cf. map of ‘resource
people’).
• Take the names of the ‘resource people’.
• Have an open mind and be polite.
• Recognize the dynamic of groups and
organize ‘brainstorming’ sessions.
Annex 12: Pair-wise Ranking Guidance Note
Duration
About 1 hour
Materials
Notepads and pens, stones and beans.
Purpose
In a community group of about 6 to 10 people, community priorities are locally defined through a
process of consultation and participation.
Objective
To understand locally defined vulnerability and the way to address them in the order of community
priorities.
When to use
In project assessment or qualitative monitoring to assess change, e.g. baseline and endline.
Process
Step 1: Setup a matrix listing the most important five to ten issues of concern along the horizontal
and vertical axes. Give each topic a letter or symbol chosen by the participants.
Step 2: Ask each small group to compare the urgency of issue 1 on the horizontal axis with issues
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on the vertical. Write a letter or symbol in each box that corresponds to the most
important issue of the two which are being compared.
Step 3: Add the number of times each letter or symbol appears in the matrix. The more times it
appears, the higher its rank.
Lack of Water Hunger Disease Lack of School

Lack of water X Hunger Water Water
Hunger Hunger X Hunger Hunger
Disease Water Hunger X School
Lack of school Water Hunger Disease X
Scores: Hunger 6, Water 4, Lack of water 1, Disease 1, Lack of school 1
The exercise shows that hunger is the main priority followed by water.
Step 4: Ask the group to choose someone to present the list of ranked priorities to the larger group.
Discuss similarities and differences in the problems and priorities of each group. This tool is very
consultative in nature.
Annex 13: Wealth Ranking Guidance Note
Duration
About 2 hours
Materials
Notepads, pens, markers, flip charts, materials for drawing on the ground, beans and stones.
Purpose
Local people usually have a strong understanding of their social and economic class differences.
You can use this knowledge through consultation to obtain their perspectives about population
classification according to wealth status or holdings. This information can be helpful in many ways.
For example, better off families can be a strong asset for community capacity building and facilitating
sustainable participation.
Objective
To identify criteria that distinguishes the poor from the rich.
To understand the social and economic characteristics of the various groupings.
To identify proportions of the population in each category.
When to use
In assessments and for progress monitoring as part of surveys, e.g. baseline and endline surveys.
Process
Step 1: Begin by asking the criteria or factors that make some people to be in different economic
classes.
Step 2: To introduce the classes, talk about the rich and ask if there are other classes?
Step 3: Identify all of the social and economic characteristics (try to quantify, e.g. 10 cows, 2 wives,
9 children, etc…).
Step 4: Try to establish a proportion of the population size in each group (see proportional piling in
the following section).
Note: Never allow the process to be too personal. Talking about wealth is a sensitive issue. Also try
to visit multiple homes in order to represent the different categories.
Figure 7: example of a wealth ranking data analysis

Social and Economic Characteristics
Classes Proportion Farm Size Animal Monthly Social Standing
Holdings Income
Rich 5 – 10% 4 – 5 acres 20 – 30 cattle 50 - $75 Polygamists
15 – 20 dpd.
Medium 30 – 40% 2 – 3 acres 5 – 10 cattle 25 - $35 Polygamists
10- 15 dpd.
Poor 40 – 50% 0.5 – 1.5 Caretakers of < $20 or Monogamists
acres cattle 10 - $19 5 – 20 dpd.
Legend: dpd. – refers to dependents.
Brief analytic comments
You will notice that the poor do not have animals but instead work for the middle and rich class –
this is very common and represents an element of connectedness. Some social characteristics of
the poor can be mixed. For example, their family size can be the smallest or the largest. The key
problem can often be a lack of productive social capital, influence, etc… In participatory programme
analysis and planning, you can consult representatives of these different social classes to develop
interventions that are pertinent to their vulnerability.
Annex 14: Proportional Piling Guidance Note

Duration
30 minutes
Materials
100 beans or stones, notepads, pens and a spot to demonstrate on the ground.
Purpose
This is a participatory technique used to define estimates and proportions, where numbers are
needed to quantify trends in analysis. It can be used as a sub-technique in most of the tools
indicated in this manual. Local people who do not have skills of formal numeracy are made to
develop quantitative data in the form of proportions that reflect local settings.
Objective
To acquire quantitative data in the form of proportions from households and communities.
When to use
During assessments, for qualitative monitoring to measure change or during evaluations to asses
change. Proportional piling is useful for collecting information about:
• Household income and expenditure
• Food quantity and proportions
• Time allocation
• Wealth group proportions
Process
The basis of your calculation is 100%. Provide 100 beans to give interviewees the flexibility of trying
to establish the most accurate estimates of proportions. If you choose to provide 100 beans, each
been has a value of 1%, 20 beans each have a 5% value, for 10 beans each has a value of 10%.
Avoid interviewees from taking up beans one by one and representing individuals – you want them
to do proportions. For example, in wealth ranking, put 100 beans on the ground and say “these
beans represent all of the people in the community. Please try to show how many people are in the
rich, middle or in the poor class?” Try to triangulate the question by a cyclic comparison.
Figure 9: Example of a proportional pilling
Food
100% Other
90% Loans
80% Gifts / begging
70% Casual labor
60% Food aid
50% Wild foods & animals
40% Market purchase
30% Own animals
20% Own crops
10%
0%
Opejal Acenio Oyoro
Annex 15: Transect Walk Guidance Note

What is a Transect Walk?
A walk through the respective area under monitoring or observation, specifically seek out areas of
interest, e.g. agricultural production areas, animal kraals, water points, schools, markets, health
centers or hospitals, areas that have been abandoned, temples, mosques, etc.
Purpose
Ensures that the monitoring team explores the whole village and looks at the differences and
commonalities in the various areas of the village.
When to use a Transect Walk?

For assessment, baseline and endline monitoring purposes.
Tips on conducting a Transect Walk - Do’s and Don’ts
Do’s Don’ts
• Walk the periphery. • Walk only in a straight line.
• Walk in a zigzag, circle, or curve. • Walk quickly.
• Talk to people you meet while walking. • Lecture.
• Encourage willing farmers and villagers to • Rush.
accompany you and ask them to describe
or explain the conditions or interesting
observations.
• Look and listen carefully.
• Observe and record.
• Question everything you see: who, what,
where, when, why, how.
• Cross-check and triangulate ask location A
about location B, ask location B about location
A; ask how they are different, similar; how they
are connected, etc.
Annex 16: Seasonal Calendar Guidance Note
Duration
About 1 hour
Materials
Notepads and pens that can allow you to draw a table on paper, or sticks and stalks to define/draw
a table on the ground.
Purpose
Interviewees can be the same number as for a focus group or household interview. It helps to
ascertain information on traditional planning and repartition of activities and chores within a
community or household, which is crucial in designing intervention.
Objective
To know at what time of the year, agricultural, economic, social activities and so forth are done. This
can be disaggregated by gender, wealth groups, etc.
When to use
During project planning, assessment, baseline and endline monitoring.
Process
Ask the community to list all the activities and then ask as to when during the year and by who the
various tasks are accomplished.
Figure: seasonal calendar

Activities Months
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Rice farming Lp P P H H
Fishing X X X
House repairs X X
Weddings X
Memorials X
Annual cultural festivals X
Legend: Lp: land preparation, P: planting, H: harvesting, X: ongoing
If you want to plan a particular project, this calendar might help you in terms of time relevance. For
example, maybe July and August might not be ideal for doing long assessments, as communities
will be busy gathering harvest. It is important to indicate when people are busy, and not busy. This is
a very good consultative tool for planning and designing projects in terms of accurate timing. It can
also be adapted for determining seasonal vulnerability and daily household chores and activities.
Annex 17: Venn or Institutional Diagramming Guidance Note
Duration
One hour
Materials
Notepads, flip charts, markers and local drawing materials like sticks/stalks, leaves etc.
Purpose
A Venn or Institutional Diagram is a useful tool to examine similarities and differences between
institutions, partners, people, and issues in a community or between communities. The diagrams
are made up of a variety of circles, each representing a different actor or influence in a situation, and
are sized and placed accordingly. They are useful to clarify the different interest groups, institutions
and decision-making patterns as indicated by the different types below.
It can be used to:

• Clarify and understand the different interest groups, institutions and decision-making pathways.
• In monitoring and evaluation, the diagrams can be revisited to assess changes in the size of
different circles, changes in boundaries and the reasons for this.
Objective
In a group discussion of about 6 to 10 people of different social groups, community members, define
existing groups and their interconnections.
When to use
At assessment, project planning stage, baseline and endline, as well as for monitoring and
evaluation.
Process
Step 1: Selection of site for exercise
• Select a spot on the ground to represent the locality.
Step 2: Drawing the diagram

• Draw circles representing communal groups and associations and place on the designated
spot. The circles should vary in size reflecting differences in the sizes of the various groups or
associations.
• In placing the circles on the ground, they should intercept each other to reflect interconnections
between communal groups.
A simple example is demonstrated below:
Venn Diagram
Pastoral Service Water + Forestry Service
District Council: Youth

Kagnegande Association
Vice President HealthService
Sub-Prefect (Social) Political

Power
Councillor
Muezzin
Council
of Elders Councilof Elders:
Village Foulasso
Village Sambaya
Councilof Elders:
Village Sigon Village Linson Foubhe
Village Nyulama Councilof Elders: Councilof Elders:

Village Basson Village Kagnegande
Source: ACF (2010), Food Security and Livelihoods Assessments: A Practical Guide for Field
Workers, page 206
Step 3: Analysis
• The Venn diagram above provides information on stakeholders (public & private), activities and
services, means and relations, presence and usefulness, and identified gaps and difficulties to
address.
• Outputs: Identification stakeholders, relationships within communities.
Following this stage, each group can now be approached to look at their objectives, activities,
assets, achievements, failures, strengths and weaknesses. The results from this stage will define
the process of group assistance delivery and capacity building.
The diagram supports as well the establishment of power relationships and influencing of the
different groups amongst each other. Information or resource flow can be indicated by arrows, which
by size will resemble the importance of the relationships.
Annex 18: Mapping Analysis Guidance Note
What is mapping?
Mapping is a useful means of visualizing the resources, services, vulnerabilities and risks in a
community. These can include key features in a community such as food sources, water sources,
clinics, schools, roads, trails, refuge, etc., as well as identifying risks/hazards such as flood areas,
health hazards etc., and indicating which locations or groups in a community are vulnerable.
Duration
Depending on the complexity of the area being mapped, this exercise can take as little as a morning’s
work to several days to complete. Ideally, a minimum of one day should be allocated.
Materials
Flipchart paper, multi-colored pens, laminating materials, a map of the area to be assessed
highlighting district boundaries, see-through plastic paper to overlay on a map. Local sticks, stalks
and leaves to indicate and draw a map on the ground.
Purpose
Maps facilitate communication and stimulate discussion on important issues in the community. They
help people to understand complex relationships, allow visual comparison of information and can be
used by a community to help plan interventions.
Maps can be used for different purposes at various stages of a project cycle including:
• For assessment and planning – Various activities, community resources, important places, risks
and hazards can be drawn in one map or overlaid onto a map to highlight issues that need to
be addressed.
• For monitoring – Changes can be recorded on maps/photographs at various stages of the
project and compared. They can also be compared with other agencies.
• For evaluation – A comparison of maps and/or photographs at different times can be used.
Objective
Mapping can be used to:
• Find out about what resources exist in a community and identify appropriate activities.
• Have common (for the community and ACF) understanding about issues faced by the community.
• Stimulate discussion with the community on resources they have and risks they face.
• Obtain general information relevant to specific issues.
• Assist insiders with planning and designing.
When to use
During project assessment and planning as well as for baseline and endline monitoring and
evaluation.
Process
Mapping is a simple and powerful tool. It does not require previous experience of the facilitator and
mostly relies on visual input from participants. It can be complemented with a transect walk.
Step 1: Determine who will participate
When selecting participants, samples from across the community should be selected including both
men and women and possibly children who know the area and are willing to participate.
Mapping can be done in smaller groups so that all can participate equally. Larger groups can be
more representative but are often unwieldy in terms of coordination. Mapping can also be done
individually, with maps produced compared between individuals, livelihood groups or wealth groups.
Maps can also be done in male and female only groups and then compared.
Step 2: The purpose of the map should be agreed upon

Maps tend to be used for the following three purposes:
1. Livelihoods Zone or Resource Map – To show local land use zones (e.g. coast zone, plains or
mountainous areas and their associated resources – see example below). This kind of map can
also be used to capture other resources, such as human and animal populations and human
capacities.
2. Geographical / Spatial Map – To get an overview of the main geographical features in one area.
Maps features such as arrangement of houses, fields, roads, rivers and other land uses, which
resources are assessable and owned by the community and individuals.
3. Hazard / Risk Map – To show hazards or risks and their frequency and severity. Also used to
identify vulnerable populations in the area.
Step 3: Drawing the map

At this step, the type of map to be drawn should be agreed upon. A simple community map can be
drawn such as the example below showing different wealth groups and where they are located:
KEY
Very poor
Poor
Middle
Rich
Source: ACF (2006), Community Participation Manual, page 49
Alternatively more complex maps that are used by ACF staff can be drawn. For a livelihoods map
(see example below), the boundaries of the livelihoods zone should be drawn. The example below
illustrates the distribution of 6 main livelihood zones* across the North Darfur State in Sudan as
chronically food insecure and reliant on the neighbouring surplus-producing West and South Darfur
states. The population is mainly agro-pastoralist and spread over six livelihood zones. Tobacco
growing is a major cash crop for populations around El Fasher. Millet is the main staple crop and is
planted by most of the population and intercropped with fruit and vegetables. In the Pastoral zone,
livestock sale remains the main source of income, and is sold or exchanged for grain.
North Darfur administrative units and food economy zones
Malha
Um Barrow
Karnoy
Kutum
a
Tin
Sayah
Kuma
F.
Serief
B
Mellit
ar
no
Kabkabie Korma
S. Omra J. S. El Fasher
Um Kedada
Tawilla
Legend: Dar El Salam
Pastoral
Goz
Agromigrant
Wadi Tewaisha
Mixed cash crop

Tombac Lait
*Goz is an area in Eastern Darfur of plains and low hills with sandy soils. Tombac is a
type of chewing tobacco. Wadi is an area of seasonal watercourses that floods in the
wet season.
Source: ACF Sudan, Food Security Assessment, North Darfur, May 2005.
Source: ACF (2010), Food Security and Livelihoods Assessments: A Practical Guide for Field
Workers, page 232
Maps can be drawn on a flipchart, blackboard, on the ground or in the sand. It is recommended that
the map be out of material that can be preserved and referred to through-out the duration of the
project. Laminating a map done on flipchart paper by a community can help preserve it, so it can be
shared with other agencies or used at a later stage in the project.
Aerial photographs, GPS printouts, urban planning blueprints, and district maps can also be used
as a base for a map, and a clear plastic sheet overlaid on these so that areas of importance can be
sketched on to (such as the livelihoods zone example above).
If the map is to be used at a later stage, as well as preserving it, agreement should be reached on a
central location (such as a community centre or government office) where the map can be displayed
so it is accessible to all.
It can also be useful to take photographs or video to ensure the accurate record of the process and
final map.
Step 4: Analyzing the information

To analyze the information presented on the map, consideration should be given to any challenges
identified and likely driver of this and similarities/differences where a comparison is being undertaken.
Discussion should be facilitated with the community to agree: i) what can change (and what not);
ii) what can the community influence (and what not); iii) what can the community accept (and what
not), iv) what can the project address (and what not).
Step 5: Communicating/sharing the map

The map should be made available to the community and other agencies by displaying it in a central
location such as the community center or a government agency.
Step 6: Using the map for M&E purposes
Comparative maps or photographs can be used over time to indicate changes that have taken place
as a result of activities undertaken.
Benefits
This tool can give a broad overview of the context of a community and look at multiple issues faced
for a holistic analysis including on issues of food security, access to other resources, health issues,
risks etc., how they affect a community and how they have changed over time.
The mapping can identify many different sectors and can therefore be less time consuming than
using a panoply of multiple other information gathering tools.
Maps are very visual and allow communities to analyze the patterns and inter-relationships of issues
and resources they have.
Community maps allow participation of both sexes in capturing their knowledge of their areas and
issues they face. Maps drawn by groups of women tend to illustrate different resources, priorities,
interests, and problems than those drawn by groups of men. It is useful to have two separate maps
drawn by men and women for comparison.
Potential challenges
• Mapping can be time-consuming, particularly if a large area needs to be covered. Participants
need to be adequately informed of how long it may take to manage expectations.
• GPS printouts or aerial photographs may be difficult to obtain, expensive, may contain sensitive
information or they may be difficult to read and interpret.
• District maps drawn along administrative boundaries may not accurately represent the
community perceptions of their own boundaries. All of these can be overlaid on each other.
• Conflicts may arise if inequities become apparent.
• A representative selection of the community should participate in order to validate overall
community perceptions. The information should also be verified with a site visit.
• As with any participatory process, one person may dominate or direct drawing if it is done in a
group, and as such the process needs to be clearly facilitated/managed.
Annex 19: Most Significant Change Guidance Note

What is “Most Significant Change”?
Most Significant Change (MSC) is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation, in that it involves
many project stakeholders in determining what change has occurred and therefore recorded, and
in analyzing the data.
It is a useful form of monitoring as it can be used throughout the project cycle, providing information
to help people manage the project.
It can contribute to evaluations in that it provides data on outcomes and impact that can be used to
help assess the achievements of the project.
MSC is best suited to complex projects promoting social and attitudinal change.
Duration
Throughout a project, each session of capturing stories is likely to take two to three hours for each
domain/subject area. Discussing stories amongst groups of stakeholders should be given about an
hour at a time.
Materials
Notepads and pens
Purpose
As a monitoring technique that does not use indicators, its purpose is to capture outcomes and
impact, and should be used with other monitoring techniques, which complement the qualitative
information collected.
Objective
To capture qualitative information about project outcomes and impact.
When to use
For project monitoring and evaluation.
Process
The MSC process involves collecting stories of significant change from communities. Project
beneficiaries are asked to share their stories which are then referred to a panel of designated
stakeholders or staff who review these and select those demonstrating the most significant change
focusing upon project impact. Once changes are captured, stakeholders sit together, read the
stories aloud and have regular in-depth discussions about the value of these reported changes.
Step 1: Establish champions who are trained in the approach

The methodology should be promoted with key people that can act as enthusiastic skilled facilitators.
A small pilot can then be carried out to learn lessons on how best to introduce it in the local context
before introducing it to the wider project.
Step 2: Establish ‘domains of change’

The domains of change are the broad and undefined areas where change is anticipated, e.g. attitudes
to food security and livelihoods or risk reduction. Several domains can be identified including those
that cater for communal rather than individual changes, negative changes and others that include
stories on unforeseen issues. Between three to five domains are manageable. The deciding factor
on how many to select is how much time beneficiaries can give to the process. Two to three hours
should be allocated for the discussion on each domain.
Step 3: Define the reporting period

Reporting periods must reflect the length of the project and the available resources to facilitate
sessions. The timeframe should complement both the review and planning cycles.
Step 4: Collect stories of change

When collecting stories, ask respondents simple open-ended questions, such as: ‘Looking back
over the last month/quarter/year, what do you think was the most significant change regarding your
personal food security and livelihood?’
Stories can be collected using a number of techniques:
• Individual interviews
• Field staff write up unsolicited stories
• Project beneficiaries write up their own stories to pass on to staff
• Focus group discussions
Step 5: Review the stories

The simplest way to review stories is to work through the project structure at the grass roots
level, namely with field staff and perhaps stakeholders. Heavy time demands may mean that if
stakeholders are included, a form of payment for their time should be considered. Senior field staff
as well as the central office could also be included in this compensation. The method used to collect
the stories will influence the way stories are reviewed.
Step 6: Provide stakeholders with feedback

A crucial component of the MSC approach is to provide feedback to stakeholders about what was
selected during the review process. This encourages organizational accountability with beneficiaries
and stimulates the continued dialogue for increased learning, shared understanding and ultimately
greater chances of project success. Feedback can be facilitated through:
• Community meetings
• Leaflets / publications
• Radio shows
Step 7: Verification
Verification of both the description and interpretation aspects of MSC stories should be undertaken.
With the descriptive part of a story, consider whether any information is missing and ask how
accurate the facts are. Consider also whether there is enough information to enable an independent
third party in order to find out what happened, when and where, and who was involved. Most stories
will contain some discrepancies – the issue is the extent to which these affect the significance given
to the events by the people involved or the observer reporting the event.
It may be useful to ask whether the interpretations given to the events are reasonable, however it is
often impossible to disprove an interpretation, particularly when some information, especially about
future consequences or knock-on effects, may not be available. Contradictions, on the other hand,
can often and more easily be identified.
Step 8: Quantification
There are three ways to quantify the MSC approach:
• By counting the number of people or activities described in the story.

• Undertaking follow-up or complementary quantitative (survey-based) research to validate
findings through the MSC, e.g., if a story described women going to the market for the first time,
a survey could be carried out to quantify this.
• By examining the full set of collected SC stories and counting the number of times a specific
type of change is noted.
Step 9: Revising the MSC process
The MSC process itself should be monitored and revised to better suit the context – changes made
can include: Around the number of domains, the methodology of collecting stories, how the MSC
stories are selected or fed back.
Benefits
• It is a technique that empowers programme participants to tell their stories.
• Large proportions of the developing world have oratorical traditions and thus story telling is in
line with local customs.
• It is inclusive.
• It promotes regular dialogue between programme participants and staff.
• It focuses on impact.
• It promotes learning.
• It is an opportunity to understand and document community perspectives, priorities and values.
Annex 20: Decision Making Analysis Guidance Note

Duration
One hour
Materials
Notepads, flip charts, markers and pens.
Purpose
Decision making processes at the household, organizational or community level largely depend on
gender, status, age, wealth or other aspects. This tool helps in providing an understanding of the
dynamics of decision making processes through a participatory discussion with up to 20 people of
different gender and social classes.
Objective
To obtain an idea of the process in which community members interpret power, influence and make
decisions.
When to use
At the assessment and project planning stage, baseline and endline monitoring, and for decision-
making as project monitoring findings emerge.
Process
Step 1: The group can choose two common but realistic problems. One should be mainly
concerned with household and another with community. Then ask that the group is split into
gender or social groups.
Step 2: For each of the problems draft some questions that the groups should answer:
Household decision making process:
• What decisions are taken by who, e.g. levels of responsibilities, gender, cultural norm, etc…?
• How are decisions made by different people within a family, clan or household?
Community or organizational decision making process:
• How is information shared?
• Is the decision making body representative of one, a few, or many interests of the community?
• How do you choose decision makers?
Step 3: Bring the groups together in larger groups to discuss the findings and allow a
participatory sharing and triangulation of information on the various aspects both at the
household and community levels.
Note: It is important both at the beginning and the end to summarize the purpose of the interview.
Annex 21: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)

Analysis Guidance Note
Duration
About 1 hour
Materials
Notepads and pens for drawing table, local materials for drawing on the ground.
Purpose
By using the same organization of a focus group discussion, it encourages and empowers
communities to develop action plans by building on strengths and opportunities.
When to use SWOT analysis

During project planning or review phases, monitoring and evaluations.
Process
Like with the capacity and vulnerability tool, do a bit of preparation in advance. List the relevant
characteristics of livelihoods in your table. In a consultative tone with the community, do the same on
the ground or on a large board. Ask interviewees to identify the various elements in horizontal order.
Objective
To consult and collaborate with communities in developing action or intervention plans by using
existing opportunities.
Characteristics Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Local material Forests 2 hours away Motor transport Logging
Labor Young men Not organized Approachable Migration
Local management Influential Poor Local structures Migration
chief communication
Farming skills Traditional Not updated Training Environmental
changes
Psychosocial Information Lack of Psychologist Constant
situation sharing recreation present insecurity
Annex 22: Community Meetings and Verbal Reporting Guidance Note
What is a community meeting and “verbal reporting”?
Community meetings provide an opportunity to get people together to share information and focus
on a specific purpose. Meetings are entry points in consulting and inviting people’s involvement.
If the meeting is to undertake verbal reporting on the progress the project has achieved to date,
findings of a survey or evaluation, than that purpose should be made clear to attendees.
Community meetings can involve gathering an entire community, or a small representation of a few
members involved in a specific issue such as cash or food distributions.
The important factor in a community meeting is that people are comfortable to come together, share
their perspectives on common problems, and contribute ideas about possible solutions.
A community meeting is different from brainstorming as it focuses on a specific topic, but not to the
extent as a Focus Group Discussion (which often includes the participation of experts on the topic).
It is often preferable to host smaller meetings rather than large community-wide meetings, as these
allow participants to share their views more freely. However, where meetings are for information
giving only, capturing a more sizeable community audience might be more appropriate. In those
instances it is important to ensure that all can hear and be engaged.
Duration
Depends on the need of the meeting. Verbal reporting should be kept short – at most an hour.
Materials
Notepads, flip charts, markers and pens.
Purpose
The purpose of community meetings and/or verbal reporting is to:
• Seek participation through group discussion; this will often be initiated through some form of
information sharing or information request.
• Get ideas from individuals, especially around planning and objective setting.
• Provide a forum to discuss ideas on a particular topic.
• Introduce ACF and the work it does.
• Sensitize the community on a specific topic.
• Identify issues facing the community and discuss solutions.
• Report on and review progress, evaluate program results and discuss recommendations.
Objective
To communicate information about a project; to feedback findings; to discuss aspects of the project
(e.g. for coordination or organization purposes).
When to use
Before project initiation; during implementation; for monitoring and evaluation.
How to conduct it?
Note: For an effective community meeting to be held, there should be sufficient planning.
Step 1: Clarify the purpose of the meeting

Ahead of the meeting, it is important to clearly define the meeting’s objective and identify key
messages that you want to get across. It is also important to consider the most effective presentation
style and means of discussion for the audience; namely should overheads/flipcharts/handouts be
used, should the group sit and discuss in a circle? Consideration should be given to the literacy level
of the group and language to be used.
Consider the following questions to prepare yourself and your team:
• Why do you want to have a meeting?

• What do you expect to achieve from it?
• What do you think the community expects to get from the meeting?
Some reasons to hold a community meeting might include, to:

• Raise awareness about ACF’s work.
• Discuss options for a particular project.
• Find out the community perspective on a particular issue.
Step 2: Review records of any previous meetings

By reviewing records of any previous meetings linked to the purpose of this meeting will ensure that
there is a continuation and that any decisions made and actions agreed upon have been addressed.
Step 3: Arrange the logistics of the meeting

The logistics of the meeting have to be set so as to be appropriate for the purpose. This includes
a suitable venue and a convenient time and place for the meeting; availability and time constraints
of different groups should be taken into account, so for example, women might not be available to
attend at the same time as men.
Depending on the purpose of the meeting, the size and composition of the group should be
determined.
Tips for Arranging a Community Meeting
• Avoid being too dependent on technology (e.g. power point presentations or slideshows) to
mitigate issues of power access.
• Keep shared information simple, accessible to all and to the point, emphasizing key messages.
• Find out if there are (cultural) norms on how to establish communication with community leaders,
appropriate format, the best time and location to meet.
• Prepare all relevant materials (e.g. handouts) well in advance of the meeting to ensure everything
has been assembled.
• Check that any requirements for the meeting are in place (e.g. visual aids, electrical outlets,
generator, speakers etc).
• Arrange an environment which is conducive to participation and discussion (e.g. light, quiet,
availability of drinks and snacks at appropriate points).
• Include a short introduction and tailor it for those attending.
• Stick to time.
• Start with items/ issues which are easy to get agreement/acceptance on.
• Allow conflicting opinions to emerge, accepting differences of opinion, avoid judging others but
ensure people are respectful and any conflict of opinion is managed.
• Allow all community representatives to have a chance to speak and share their opinions.
• End on a positive note summarizing the key points raised.
Step 4: Notify the community

The community or the group targeted for the meeting should be informed of it through the
communication channels most appropriate (e.g. posters, use of the town speaker, home visits,
public announcements, radio, telephone, word of mouth).
Step 5: Facilitate the meeting

The meeting should be facilitated so that it sticks to the purpose, and active participation encouraged
from all attendees. Negative comments, interruptions or long contributions should be managed. Key
points should be captured (e.g. on a flip chart) summarized at the end of the meeting to ensure the
purpose has been met. Actions should be agreed upon, as should those responsible for carrying
them out. Where relevant, the date and time for a follow-up meeting should also be decided upon.
Tips to Ensure the Inclusion and Participation of all Community Groups

• Is the location accessible to everyone? Schedule the meeting so that people can attend - this
may be different times of the day for men as opposed to women.
• Consider how you can involve quieter participants and how to avoid the meeting being dominated
by a few people. Consider whether it is appropriate to hold separate meetings for men and
women or different groups.
• Consider whether some of the attendees who are less likely to participate in the meeting can
help co-facilitate so that they can become more active in the proceedings.
• Keep the meeting short, to time, inclusive and positive.
Step 6: Keeping records and following-up on agreed action points after the meeting
After the meeting, records of the meeting (including decisions and action points) should be clearly
documented and shared with all relevant stakeholders. Any outstanding points, queries or feedback
should be followed up with attendees.
Tips in Verbal Reporting

• Even when people affected by the emergency have participated throughout the project, some
people will know more about it than others.
• Keep the reporting short.
• Don’t hide information but aim to help people remember the main points about what has
happened.
• Think about what people need to know.
• Prepare a verbal presentation that suits people’s needs.
• Emphasize key points.
• If you can, use posters, quotes, photos, slides, tables, and charts.
• Encourage participation: A Question & Answer session, a panel, or a short play can help.
• Encourage people to say what they think: People may have conflicting views of the project and
the changes it is making. Think ahead about how you will deal with these different views.
• Listen and be tactful.
• Try to maintain a good atmosphere and good relationships between people, especially if they
express different views. Try to end the discussion on a positive note.
Annex 23: Designing a Logical Framework and Indicators
Designing a logical framework
A project logical framework (logframe) is an important tool through which to summarize the project
plan, map the multiple levels of project objectives and associate results in the short, medium and
long terms. It should be derived by undertaking a “problem tree” analysis that breaks down problems
faced by communities to build them back up into a “solutions tree” or logframe.
The logframe is one form of a logical or logic model; a model where there should be a clear
relationship of one thing leading to another. In this instance, inputs or resources are used by project
activities to produce results. Results are defined as “the effects of actions, that can be intended
or unintended, positive or negative” and can be split into different levels of results depending on
the significance of their achievement and level of change attained. In the Results Chain indicated
in Figure 4 below, three levels of results are identified - outputs, outcomes and impacts (see Box
1 below for definitions), where project activities should lead to these three results types; results in
the short, medium and long term. The intended results that is hoped a project will achieve can be
referred to as objectives, and are determined at the planning stage of a project.
The logical relationship of inputs leading to activities that produce outputs, which result in medium
term change (or outcomes) which result in longer term change (or impact), can be mapped out as a
Results Chain, as in Figure 1 below: Inputs are used to carry out activities, —> Activities produce
specific outputs, —> Outputs produce outcomes, —> Outcomes contribute to the goal (impact) of a
project.
Figure 1: The Results Chain (Logframe format)

Intended Results
Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact

Financial, human Actions undertaken The outputs, end products Outcomes on beneficiaries The medium to
and material to transform inputs of deliverables (titled are medium term changes long term impact
resources to outputs results in the objectives we ‘want to see’. These we ‘hope to see’
section of the logframe – correlate to the ‘purpose’
these are things we -correlates to
objective in a logframe
expect to see the Goal in the
logframe
A sample results chain
Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact
Food Aid Distribution of food aid - The number of people who - Increase in average number of meals % decrease in malnutrition
received food aid consumed per day rates (SAM, and GAM)
- The quantity of food distributed - % increase in the number of people that
have access to food
Below in Box 1 are the definitions of each of the levels of logframe objectives and their associated
results that can be measured by indicators, as well as examples of M&E activities that might
measure these at each level of the logframe.
Box 1: Definitions for Logframe Terminology

Logframe objectives Levels of results and Sample Means
Definitions associated Objectively of Verification
Verifiable Indicators (OVI) that (MoV) of
measure objectives indicators
Overall Broad project objectives Impact Impact indicators E.g. Endline
Objective in terms of the longer-term that measure this survey (including
[Goal] benefits to beneficiaries long term change household
and the wider benefits in conditions of interviews &
to society. The Overall the community focus group
Objective(s) will not be (e.g. % change in discussions)
achieved by the project malnutrition rates or
alone; the project aims to mortality rates due
contribute to them to malnutrition)
Project The benefits to be Outcome Indicators describing E.g. Post-
Purpose received by the project medium-term effects Distribution
beneficiaries or target of an intervention’s Monitoring
group as a result of outputs. (e.g. % survey;
utilising the services change in the Post-Harvest
provided by the population with Monitoring
programme access to daily survey
rations/food)
Results The outputs produced by Outputs Indicators describing E.g. Beneficiary
[Outputs] undertaking a series of the immediate distribution list;
activities. These are the effects of an activity; attendance lists
services to be delivered to tangible products,
the intended beneficiaries goods and services,
or target group, and it and other immediate
should be possible for changes that lead
project management to be to the achievement
held accountable for their of outcomes.
delivery. Outputs are
mainly measured
in numbers (e.g.
number of people
or % of population
served).
Activities The tangible goods and Process describe the E.g. Distribution
services delivered by the activities undertaken records
project. (e.g. distribution of (e.g. Metric Tonnes
seeds and tools) of food distributed)
Lower level results (i.e. processes and outputs) contribute to the achievement of higher ones (i.e.
outcomes and impact). To assist with project planning, it is useful to draw out the logic model of the
project (or theory of change), to check whether the logic of it flows and makes sense. Each level of
objectives should have correlating intended results that can be measured by respective indicators.
Figure 2: Logic Model – building up a logframe
Logframe objectives levels Indicator types – or levels of results
Evaluation
Overall Objective (Goal) Impact Long term change
we ‘hope to see’
End outcome on
Purpose Outcomes beneficiaries we
‘want to see’
Monitoring
End products of
Results Outputs deliverables we
expect to see
Actions to
Process transform inputs
to outputs
Activities Inputs Financial, human

and material
resources
An M&E system should reflect this flow or chain of results, that builds on the logframe and is used
to create an M&E plan (see Toolkit 4). Most results can be measured through monitoring, depending
on the length of the project. Higher level results may take longer to become evident and therefore to
measure, and may become clearer in an evaluation.
Of course, reality does not always work in a linear fashion. By mapping out the logical flow, theory
of change or chain of results, the results expected from each activity or combination of activities
undertaken over a period of time can at least be mapped out with correlating indicators agreed upon
to measure whether the expected result is being achieved.
Any assumptions made at each stage of the logical model will be captured, and referred to in the
assumptions column of the logframe.
The actual logframe (see Figure 3 below) therefore summarizes this theory of change over time
by detailing each of the objectives (goal, purpose, results) intended by the project, the related
indicators that measure the extent to which results against each objective have been attained, the
assumptions that need to hold if each level of objectives is to lead to the next, and the means by
which indicators will be measured (Means of Verification (MOV)). Indicators and the MOVs then
form the basis of a project’s M&E system to measure the achievement of intended (as well as
unintended) results.
Figure 3: Logframe template highlighting the links between assumptions and objectives
Intervention Logic Objectively Means of Assumptions

Verifiable Verification
Indicators (MOV)
(OVI)
Overall
Impact
Objective Then
indicators
(Goal)
Project Outcome
Then If
Purpose indicators
Results Output
Then If
indicators
Activities Inputs Costs
Then
If
Pre-conditions
Measuring impact can be challenging, costly and sometimes not possible for short-term projects,
given that impact is change seen in the medium to long term, depending on the project objectives.
Increasingly in the humanitarian sector, many argue in favour of adopting sector-wide measurements
of impact rather than project-specific ones.
Designing indicators
The quality of a logframe is critical for successful project M&E, and its logical flow should therefore
be rigorously checked. Logframes should be prepared as close to the field as possible with input
from beneficiaries and partners. These should also key into measuring the success of objectives
through jointly agreed upon indicators and means of measurement.
Indicators are means or units of measurement, that define ways in which to determine
whether targets have been achieved or not. They are called indicators given that they are often
only indicative of whether an objective has been achieved rather than wholly demonstrating it. Often
a number of indicators are required to give a sense of whether an objective has been achieved or
not.
Box 2: SMART and SPICED Indicators

The acronyms SMART and SPICED indicators act as a helpful guide to consider what a good
indicator looks like (SMART) and how it should be derived (SPICED).
SMART indicators:
S Specific
M Measurable
A Achievable Or: acceptable, applicable, appropriate, attainable or agreed upon
R Relevant Or: reliable, realistic
T Time-bound
SPICED Indicators:
S Subjective - Informants have a special position or experience that gives them unique insights
which may yield a very high return on the investigators time. In this sense, what may be seen by
others as ‹anecdotal› becomes critical data because of the source’s value.
P Participatory - Indicators should be developed together with those best placed to assess them.
This means involving a project›s ultimate beneficiaries, but it can also mean involving local staff
and other stakeholders.
I Interpreted and communicable - Locally defined indicators may not mean much to other
stakeholders, so they often need to be explained.
C Cross-checked and compared - The validity of assessment needs to be cross-checked, by

comparing different indicators and progress, and by using different informants, methods, and
researchers.
E Empowering - The process of setting and assessing indicators should be empowering in itself
and allow groups and individuals to reflect critically on their changing situation.
D Diverse and disaggregated - There should be a deliberate effort to seek out different indicators
from a range of groups, especially men and women. This information needs to be recorded in
such a way that these differences can be assessed over time.
Indicators should be measurable, through clear Means of Verification, and should each have a clear
target and baseline against which to measure progress, as exemplified below.
Box 3: Sample Agricultural Indicators

Indicators (OVI) Means of Verification (MoV)
Impact X% change in the number of households (HH) - HH survey
that can meet their food needs during the - Focus group discussion
hunger gap in XX region following provision of
assistance (Baseline: YY%)
Outcome X % increase in household production of major - HH Pre- and Post-Harvest
crops (by crop type and unit) in XX region survey
between XX and XX period of time (Baseline: - Focus Group Discussion for
YY%) each targeted livelihood group
Outputs Area (hectares) of (newly) cultivated land as - Observation
a result of agricultural assistance activities - HH survey
(Baseline: YY hectares)
For ACF’s FSL projects, a selection of mandatory core and optional thematic indicators should be
drawn on to shape indicator logframes. An overview of these is included in Toolkit 3.
Annex 24: Stakeholder Information Needs Matrix
The purpose of this matrix is to summarize the information of the needs of key stakeholders for a
project so that project staff can build this into the M&E system. This may vary from project to project
depending on the different stakeholders and depending on who covers the M&E function and what
their responsibilities include. As such, the following is a suggested example:
Report / Information Purpose When M&E Role Recipient

inform- required Stakeholder
ation type
or format
Weekly Progress against Provide updates Weekly N/A Head of

Field activity plans; to managers Mission
Reports situation and on whether (HoM)/
problem analysis progress is on Coordinator/
track; to facilitate Programme
decision-making Manager
to address any (PM)
challenges/
problems
Activity Progress against Provide updates Monthly Collect HoM; PM;
Progress output & outcome to managers monitoring Headquarters
Report (& where on whether data, (HQ); Local
(quant & feasible impact) progress is on support authorities;
qual) indicators; qual track and against data Informal
explanation planned outputs; analysis updates to
of progress; to facilitate and communities
results of any decision-making reporting
evaluations to address any of findings;
challenges/ ensure any
problems; for feedback
accountability to is reflected
key stakeholders in updating
project
plans
Survey Changes in Provide updates Depends Collect HoM; PM;
Findings communities to managers on project data, HQ; Donor;
Report (outcomes on whether M&E plan support Local
and impact) progress is on data authorities;
and analysis track and against analysis Sector
to explain any planned outputs; and partners
change or lack of to facilitate reporting and other
change decision-making of findings; NGOs/UN;
to address any ensure any Communities
challenges/ feedback
problems; is reflected
for strategic in updating
planning; for project
coordination; for plans
accountability to
key stakeholders
Donor Progress against Demonstrate Depends Support HoM; PM;
Progress plan (indicators) results that were on donor programme HQ; Donor;
and End and results and were not agreement staff to Local
of Project explanation; achieved against and assemble authorities;
Reports lessons learned; plans and why; project relevant Sector
recommendations highlight long span data, partners;
for future term change; support any other
programming; capture lessons analysis NGOs/UN;
spending of funds learned and required Communities
recommendations and
for next phase/ reporting
future work; of findings;
Accountability ensure any
against agreed feedback
objectives; show is reflected
value for money in updating
project
plans
Evaluation (Un)intended Assess changes; Depends Internal HoM; PM;
Report changes in assess how on project evaluation HQ; Donor;
communities effective and M&E plan – support or Local
(outcomes efficient the undertake authorities;
and impact); project was; data Sector
effectiveness; capture lessons collection, partners;
efficiency; learned and analysis other
relevance; recommendations and report NGOs/UN;
coherence; for current/future write-up; Communities
sustainability work; for strategic External
planning evaluation
– support
desk
review; data
collation;
ensure
feedback
fed into
plans
Annual Key events and Show whether Annually Collect Trustees;
Report achievements resources were monitoring donors;
in year; annual used effectively data, general
income and and what was support public; sector
spend achieved for data bodies
them; key events analysis
and projects; and
demonstrate reporting of
impactful findings
programming;
human stories
NOTE: Formal feedback to communities should be made on survey/evaluation findings; more

informal updates of monitoring reports should also be communicated.
Annex 25: Types of Participation
Type Characteristics of each Type
1. Passive People participate by being told what is going to happen or what has
Participation already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an administration
or project management without listening to people’s responses. The
information being shared belongs only to external professionals.
2. Participation in People participate by answering questions posed by extractive
Information Giving researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People
do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of
the research are neither shared nor checked for accuracy.
3. Participation by People participate by being consulted, and external people listen
Consultation to views. These external professionals define both problems and
solutions, and may modify these in the light of people’s responses.
Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-
making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board
people’s views.
4. Participation for People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return
Material Incentives for food, cash or other material incentives. Much on-farm research falls
into this category, as farmers provide the fields but are not involved in
the experimentation of the process of learning. It is very common to
see this called participation, though people have no stake in prolonging
activities when the incentives end.
5.Functional People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives
Participation related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion
of externally initiated social organization. Such involvement does not
tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather
after major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be
dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-
dependent.
6. Interactive People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and
Participation formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones.
It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple
perspectives and make use of systematic and structured learning
processes. These groups take control over local decisions, and so
people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices.
7.Self-Mobilisation People participate by taking initiatives independently of external
institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external
institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain
control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated mobilization
and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable
distribution of wealth and power.
Annex 26: Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) Guidance Note
What is the HDDS indicator?
Household Dietary Diversity (HDD) is the number of different food groups consumed over a given
period.
How does the HDDS differ from the Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS)?
While the Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS) is used as a proxy measure of the nutritional
quality of an individual’s diet (see Annex 22), the HDDS is used as a proxy measure of the socio-
economic level of the household. The differences in the list of food groups used to construct the
HDDS and IDDS (e.g. for women or children) reflect these different objectives.
Why use DDS?

It is a useful proxy indicator for food security and livelihoods for the following reasons:
A more diversified diet is an important outcome in and of itself.

• A more diversified diet is associated with a number of improved outcomes in areas such as birth
weight, child anthropometric status, and improved hemoglobin concentrations.
• A more diversified diet is highly correlated with such factors as caloric and protein adequacy,
percentage of protein from animal sources (high quality protein), and household income. Even in
very poor households, increased food expenditure resulting from additional income is associated
with increased quantity and quality of the diet.
• Questions on dietary diversity can be asked at the household or individual level, making it
possible to examine food security and livelihoods at the household and intra- household levels.
• Obtaining this data is relatively straightforward. Field experience indicates that training field
staff to obtain information on dietary diversity is not complicated, and that respondents find
such questions relatively straightforward to answer, not especially intrusive nor especially
burdensome. Asking these questions typically takes less than 10 minutes per respondent.
When should HDDS data be collected?
To accurately capture changes in HDDS over time, data should be collected during the period of
greatest food shortages (such as immediately prior to the harvest). Subsequent data collection (e.g.
endline) should be undertaken at the same time of year, to avoid seasonal differences.
How is HDDS data collected?

To better reflect a quality diet, the number of different food groups consumed on household or
individual level is calculated, rather than the number of different foods consumed. Knowing that
households consume, for example, an average of four different food groups implies that their diets
offer some diversity in both macro- and micronutrients. This is a more meaningful indicator than
knowing that households consume four different foods, which might all be cereals. The following set
of 12 food groups is used to calculate the HDDS:
1. Cereals (maize porridge, rice, sorghum, millet pasta, bread, rice or other)
2. Roots and tubers (cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes or other)
3. Pulses/legumes/nuts (beans, peas, chick peas or other)
4. Vegetables and leaves
5. Fruit
6. Meat, poultry, offal (beef, goat, lamb, poultry)
7. Fish and seafood
8. Milk/Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese or other)
9. Eggs
10. Sugar, sugar products, honey
11. Oil/fats (oil, fat or butter)
12. Condiments (spices, tea, coffee) or other miscellaneous food
These questions should be part of a population-based survey applied to all the households in
the sample (see below HDDS Survey Template and Annex 35 Baseline Survey Template).
Information on household food consumption should be collected for the previous 24-hours as a
reference period (24-hour recall). Longer reference periods result in less accurate information due
to imperfect recall. When using the 24-hour recall method, the interviewer should first determine
whether the previous 24 hour period was «usual» or «normal» for the household. If it was a special
occasion, such as a funeral or feast, or if most household members were absent, another day
should be selected for the interview. If this is not possible, it is recommended that another household
be selected, rather than conduct the interview using an earlier day in the week.
Data for the HDDS indicator is collected by asking the respondent a series of yes or no questions.
These questions should be asked of the person who is responsible for food preparation, or if that
person is unavailable, of another adult who was present and ate in the household the previous day.
The questions refer to the household as a whole, not any single member of the household.
The respondent should be instructed to include the food groups consumed by household members
in the home, or prepared in the home for consumption by household members outside the home
(e.g. at lunchtime in the fields). As a general rule, foods consumed outside the home that were
not prepared in the home should not be included. While this may result in an underestimation of
the dietary diversity of individual family members (who may, for example, purchase food in the
street), HDDS is designed to reflect household dietary diversity, on average, among all members.
Including food purchased and consumed outside the household by individual members may lead
to overestimating HDDS overall. However, in situations where consumption outside the home of
foods not prepared in the household is common, survey implementers may decide to include those
foods. Such decisions should be clearly documented, so that subsequent surveys will use the same
protocol and to ensure correct interpretation and comparison.
How is the HDDS calculated?

The tabulation of the HDDS variable should be calculated using the following steps:
Step 1: First, calculate the HDDS for each household surveyed in the sample. The value of this
variable will range from 0 to 12:
HDDS = Total number of food groups consumed by members of the household. Values for A
through L will be either “0=No” or “1=Yes”.
Sum (A + B + C + D + E + F + G + H + I + J + K + L).
Step 2: Calculate the average HDDS indicator for the sample population.
Average HDDS = Sum (HDDS) .

Total Number of Households
What should an HDDS target be?
An increase in the average number of different food groups consumed provides a quantifiable
measure of improved household food access. In general, any increase in household dietary diversity
reflects an improvement in the household’s diet.
In order to use this indicator to assess improvements in food security and livelihoods in a
performance reporting context, the changes in HDDS must be compared to some meaningful target
level of diversity. Unfortunately, normative data on ‘ideal’ or ‘target’ levels of diversity are usually not
available.
Two options are available to determine appropriate targets. Both of these options have the
advantage that the target set represents a level of dietary diversity that is demonstrably achievable
by the sample population.
1. The dietary diversity patterns of wealthier households can be used as a target, under the
assumption that poorer households will diversify their food expenditures as incomes rise, and
thereby mirror the consumption patterns of wealthier households. Because projects using the
HDDS indicator usually include interventions aimed at increasing household income, baseline
surveys generally collect some income or economic status information, in addition to the dietary
data. If income data are available, the sample could be divided into three income groups (terciles
of income), and the average dietary diversity calculated for the richest income tercile. The
average HDDS in the richest 33 % of households can then serve as a guide for setting the target
level of HDDS for the purpose of performance monitoring. Where income data are not available,
income groups can be defined using proxies, such as possession of assets or other items found
to be highly correlated with income in the project population.
2. In the absence of income or economic data from the baseline survey, an HDDS target can be
established by taking the average diversity of the 33 % of households with the highest diversity
(upper tercile of diversity).
Cross-tabulating or triangulation of HDDS results with the other core indicators (See Annexes 26-
33), additional socio-demographic and socio-economic can help identify correlations between these
and the HDDS. Correlations support as well a better interpretation and understanding, in case of
discrepancies and local particularities in contexts.
What are potential challenges with the HDDS?

• As any participatory tool, an introductory discussion should be facilitated. As the HDDS should
be part of an overall interview and not a lone standing tool, the overall introduction to the
interview should capture that various topics will be discussed.
• The recall timeline includes the past 24hrs, which is easy to recall for interviewees. Though, a
short term recall like HDDS, as compared to longer recall with the FCS, will provide information
on a very short duration during the consumption of the household, and is hence more prone
skewed results due to exemptions (e.g. special days, festivals, etc) rather than the rule (e.g.
every day).
• The choice of which dietary diversity tool to use, i.e. FCS, HDDS, IDDS, depends on the
objective of the implemented project. Given short term dietary diversity improvements or
linkages to improved household income levels are considered, the HDDS might be the right tool
(see above). Given focus on particular malnourished members in the household and linkages
to care practices are considered, the IDDS (e.g. under 5 year olds or pregnant and lactating
women) might be the right tool (see Annex 27 Guidance Note on IDDS). Given longer term
impact and sustainability of quality of food diversity and consumption are considered, the FCS
might be the right tool (see Annex 28 Guidance Note on FCS).
QUESTIONNAIRE - Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
Overview of the questionnaire: This questionnaire seeks to collect data on Household Dietary
Diversity. This is most likely to be used as part of a baseline and or endline survey and therefore
also forms part of the ACF FSL baseline template.
How to complete this questionnaire:

• Give a title + a code to your survey (see the general guidance)
• For multiple choice questions, insert correct code number (1, 2 etc) or circle appropriate answer,
as directed.
SURVEY INFORMATION
Q1 I would like to ask you about the types of foods that you or anyone else in your
household ate yesterday (in the last 24 hours) during the day and at night.
(The question should be asked of the person who is responsible for food preparation, or if that
person is unavailable, of another adult who was present and ate in the household the previous
day. Read the list of foods below. Circle the food in question if anyone in the household ate it.
Insert any local foods [e.g. ugali, nshima], , bread, rice noodles, biscuits, or any other foods made
from millet, sorghum, maize, rice, wheat, or any other locally available grain)
(Circle the answer) Yes No
A Cereals (maize porridge, rice, sorghum, millet pasta, bread, rice or other) 1 0
B Roots and tubers (cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes or other) 1 0
C Pulses/legumes/nuts (beans, peas, chick peas or other) 1 0
D Vegetables and leaves 1 0
E Fruit 1 0
F Meat, poultry, offal (beef, goat, lamb, poultry) 1 0
G Fish and seafood 1 0
H Milk/Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese or other) 1 0
I Eggs 1 0
J Sugar, sugar products, honey 1 0
K Oil/fats (oil, fat or butter) 1 0
L Condiments (spices, tea, coffee) or other miscellaneous food 1 0
QUALITY CONTROL
M&E supervisor_____________________________ Date___________
Data entry_________________________________ Date___________
For additional guidance on the HDDS, refer to FANTA’s published guidance: Household
Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator
Guide, VERSION 2, September 2006
Annex 27: Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS) Guidance Note
What is the IDDS indicator?
Individual Dietary Diversity (IDD) is the number of different food groups consumed over a given
period.
How does the IDDS differ from the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)?
Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS) is often used as a proxy measure of the nutritional quality
of an individual’s diet (notably children). This use is different from HDDS that is used as a proxy
measure of household access to food.
While the questions used to collect data on dietary diversity for both uses are similar, there are
some important differences that are reflective of the different objectives. For example, “sugar/honey”
is included as a food group for HDDS. As an indicator of socio-economic change, the inclusion of
sugar or honey in a household’s diet tells us something about their ability to access/purchase food.
In contrast, sugar and honey are not included as a food group in the list of food groups included
in the IDDS indicator for children, because this food group is not an important contributor to the
nutritional quality of a child’s diet.
The table below provides a comparison of the food groups included in the HDDS and IDDS (children)
indicators.
Note: Firstly, the range for each measure is different (0-12 vs. 0-8). Secondly, while the IDDS
(children) includes a smaller number of food groups, the questionnaire itself includes a great deal
more detail that is eventually combined into the 8 food groups when calculating the IDDS (children)
indicator.
Food Groups and Weights
HDDS Food Groups (Score: 0-12) IDDS (Children) Food Groups
(Score: 0-8)
No Food group Food items No Food group
1 Cereals (Staples) Maize, maize porridge, rice, 1 Grains, roots or tubers
sorghum, millet pasta, bread
2 Roots & Tubers Cassava, potatoes and sweet 2 Vitamin A-rich plant foods
(Staples) potatoes
3 Pulses / legumes Beans, Peas, groundnuts 3 Other fruits or vegetables
/ nuts and cashew nuts
4 Vegetables Vegetables and leaves 4 Meat, poultry, fish, seafood
5 Fruit Fruit 5 Eggs
6 Meat, poultry, offal Beef, goat, poultry, pork, 6 Pulses/legumes/nuts
eggs and fish
7 Fish & seafood 7 Milk and milk products
8 Milk / Dairy products Milk, yogurt, cheese or other 8 Foods cooked in oil/fat
9 Eggs
10 Sugar Sugar, sugar products, honey
11 Oils Oils, fats and butter
12 Condiments Tea, Coffee, Spices

If a project wishes to collect data on HDDS and IDDS in the same instrument, data collection may
become confusing because of the similarities of the questions. It is important to train the interviewers
to help the respondent to transition from thinking about food groups consumed by the household to
thinking in greater detail about the food groups consumed by their child.
Why use the IDDS indicator?

IDDS is an indicator for individual nutrient adequacy. It is used here for highlighting consumption
patterns of children = Child IDDS. It is used in household questionnaires for children 6-23 months
of age, and highlights the proportion of children who receive sufficient foods, from 4 or more food
groups
When should IDDS data be collected?

To accurately capture changes in IDDS over time, data should be collected during the period of
greatest food shortages (such as immediately prior to the harvest). Subsequent data collection (e.g.
endline) should be undertaken at the same time of year, to avoid seasonal differences.
How is IDDS data collected?

These questions should be part of a population-based survey applied to all the households in the
sample (see below IDDS Survey Template and Annex 35 Baseline Survey Template). Rather than
reading off the questionnaire, it is more effective to allow the caregiver to freely recall what the child
has eaten the previous day (Note: Do not count breast milk – it is only about complementary food
diet):
• Ask the caregiver to list all the foods (meals and snacks) eaten yesterday by his/her child during
the day and night. Start with the first food/drink consumed the day before in the morning.
• Ask the respondent to recall the foods, circle “yes=1” for those mentioned and also circle the
corresponding foods in the appropriate food group for those mentioned.
• A score of 1 is assigned if an item from that food group was consumed at least once in the
reference period, and 0 if not. Score will be either 0 or 1.
• If a mixed dish was eaten, ask about and underline all the ingredients of the dish. This is
important. Remember for instance that oil cannot go alone; the baby did not eat oil only; all the
ingredients contained in the dish must be marked = rice, okra, oil, etc.
• Once the recall is finished, probe for food groups where no food was underlined. Write “0” in the
right hand column of the questionnaire when it is ascertained that no foods in that group were
eaten.
How can the IDDS data be analysed and presented?
The data can either be presented as a pie chart or as a bar chart – see example below:
IDDS Among Children 6 - 23 Months in Amuru

120%
100% 8%
21%
80% 43%
34%
Acceptable
60% 39%
Borderline
40% 36% Poor

58%
40%
20%
21%
0%
Baseline Midline Endline
The above example shows the change of dietary diversity in children between the ages of 6 and 23
months in Amuru, Uganda. Of the selected beneficiaries only 8% of them had access to an acceptable
diverse diet at the beginning of the program as seen through the results of the baseline survey. By
the end of the program, this number had increased to 43%. In this context, the consumption of 1 to
4 food groups was considered poor, 5 to 8 was borderline and 9 to 13 was considered acceptable.
Cross-tabulating or triangulation of IDDS results with the other core indicators (See Annexes 26 -
and the IDDS. Correlations support as well a better interpretation and understanding, in case of
What are potential challenges with the IDDS?

• As for any participatory tool, an introductory discussion should be facilitated. As the IDDS
should be part of an overall interview and not a lone standing tool, the overall introduction to the
• The recall timeline includes the past 24hrs, which is easy to recall for interviewees. Though, a
short term recall like IDDS, as compared to longer recall with the FCS, will provide information
on a very short duration during the consumption of the household, and is hence more prone
skewed results due to exemptions (e.g. special days, festivals, etc) rather than the rule (e.g.
every day).
(see Annex 26 Guidance Note on HDDS). Given focus on particular malnourished members in
the household and linkages to care practices are considered, the IDDS (e.g. under 5 year olds
or pregnant and lactating women) might be the right tool (see above). Given longer term impact
and sustainability of quality of food diversity and consumption are considered, the FCS might be
the right tool (see Annex 28 Guidance Note on FCS).
QUESTIONNAIRE - Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS)
Overview of the questionnaire: This questionnaire seeks to collect data on Individual Dietary

as directed.
SURVEY INFORMATION
Q1 I would like to ask you about the types of foods that your child ate yesterday (in the last
24 hours) during the day and at night.
(The question should be asked of the caregiver on behalf of the child. Ask the question
unprompted first and then read the list of foods below. Circle the food in question if anyone in
the household ate it. Insert any local foods)
(Circle the answer) Yes No
A Grains, roots or tubers 1 0
B Vitamin A-rich plant foods 1 0
C Other fruits or vegetables 1 0
D Meat, poultry, fish, seafood 1 0
E Eggs 1 0
F Pulses/legumes/nuts 1 0
G Milk and milk products 1 0
H Foods cooked in oil/fat 1 0
I Grains, roots or tubers 1 0
QUALITY CONTROL
Data entry_________________________________ Date___________
For additional guidance on the IDDS, refer to FANTA’s published guidance: Household
Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator
Guide, VERSION 2, September 2006
Annex 28: Food Consumption Score Guidance Note
What is the Food Consumption Score (FCS)?
It is an indicator of household dietary adequacy focusing principally on macronutrients and energy. It
indicates if people are having sufficient food intake to lead a nutritionally balanced life.
How does the FCS differ from the Household and Individual Diversity Score (HDDS
and IDDS)?
While the IDDS is used as a proxy measure of the nutritional quality of an individual’s diet (see
Annex 27), the HDDS is used as a proxy measure of the socio-economic level of the household
(see Annex 26). The FCS is focusing on the overall adequacy of the food consumption (through
frequency and quality) as compared to the simple dietary diversity. Recall periods for the three
scores differ (7 days and 24hrs). The differences in the list of food groups used to construct the
HDDS (12) and IDDS (8) and FCS (8) reflect the particular objectives of each score.
Why use the FCS?

It is an indicator for the nutritional adequacy of the food consumed on household level. It is a direct
proxy indicator for nutritional status and through the 7 day recall established a longer term and more
sustainable situation or change, as compared to a 24hrs recall, which might be biased towards
special events and occasions.
When should FCS data be collected?

No particular timing for FCS data collection is recommended. Given it is one tool in a series of tools
applied in households surveys, a similar timing as other tools, e.g. at the beginning of the project as
baseline data or at the peak of the lean season is recommended.
How is FCS data collected?

As part of a household questionnaire (see below FCS Survey Template and Annex 35 Baseline
Survey Template), households are asked to state what food groups they consumed in the last 7
days and the frequency of consumption of each type in the last 7 days. Information does not need
to be obtained on how many times a day each food type has been consumed. The food groups are
reduced as compared to the HDDS, with only ten groups.
Each food group is given a weight based on its nutrient content and then multiplied by the number of
days a household consumed one or more items from that group within a seven-day period.
Data for the FCS indicator is collected by asking the respondent a series of yes or no questions.
These questions should be asked of the person who is responsible for food preparation, or if that
person is unavailable, of another adult who was present and ate in the household the previous seven
days. The questions refer to the household as a whole, not any single member of the household.
The respondent should be instructed to include the food groups consumed by household members
in the home, or prepared in the home for consumption by household members outside the home
(e.g. at lunchtime in the fields). As a general rule, foods consumed outside the home that were not
prepared in the home should not be included. While this may result in an underestimation of the food
consumption of individual family members (who may, for example, purchase food in the street), FCS
is designed to reflect household food consumption, on average, among all members. Including food
purchased and consumed outside the household by individual members may lead to overestimating
FCS overall. However, in situations where consumption outside the home of foods not prepared in
the household is common, survey implementers may decide to include those foods, and adapt to the
local context. Such decisions should be clearly documented, so that subsequent surveys will use the
same protocol and to ensure correct interpretation and comparison.
How is the FCS calculated?
As part of the baseline questionnaire, households are asked to state what food types they consumed
in the last 7 days and the frequency of consumption of each type in the last 7 days. Information
does not need to be obtained on how many times a day each food type has been consumed.
The consumption frequency of each food group is multiplied by an assigned weight that is based on
its nutrient content (see Food Groups and Weights able below).
FCS = (staple frequency x staple weight) + (pulse frequency x pulse weight) + (veg frequency
x veg weight) + (fruit frequency x staple weight) + (animal frequency x animal weight) + (sugar
frequency x sugar weight) + (dairy frequency x staple weight) + (oil frequency x oil weight)
Food Groups and Weights

No Food group Food items Weights Reason for weights
1 Cereals (Staples) Maize, maize
porridge, rice,
sorghum, millet Energy dense, protein content lower
pasta, bread 2 and poorer quality than legumes,
micro-nutrients
2 Tubers (Staples) Cassava, potatoes
and sweet potatoes
3 Pulses Beans, Peas, Energy dense, high amounts of
groundnuts and 3 protein but of lower quality than
cashew nuts meats, micronutrients, low fat.
4 Vegetables Vegetables and Low energy, low protein, no fat,
1
leaves micro-nutrients
5 Fruit Fruits Low energy, low protein, no fat,
1
micro-nutrients
6 Meat and fish Beef, goat, poultry, Highest quality protein, easily
pork, eggs and fish absorbable micronutrients, energy
4 dense, fat. Even when consumed in
small quantities, improvements to
the quality of diet are large.
7 Milk Milk yogurt and Highest quality protein, micro-
other diary nutrients, vitamin A, energy.
However, milk could be consumed
4 only in very small amounts and
should then be treated as condiment
and therefore reclassification in such
cases is needed.
8 Sugar Sugar and sugar Empty calories. Usually consumed in
0.5
products small quantities.
9 Oils Oils, fats and Energy dense but usually no other
butter 0.5 micronutrients. Usually consumed in
small quantities.
10 Condiments Condiments 0
Source: WFP (2008) Measures of Food Consumption
What should the FCS target be?
The household FCS score can have a maximum value of 126. Depending on whether the population
falls into a typical threshold category (see column a)), and the population consumes oil and sugar
on average on a daily basis (see column b)), the thresholds will vary as demonstrated in the
table below. Depending on the local context, some additions can be made, but need to be well
documented to ensure appropriate interpretation and consideration during the follow up surveys
and endline monitoring.
FCS Thresholds
a) Typical Threshold b) Thresholds with oil and Profiles
sugar eaten on a daily basis
(~7 days per week)
0 – 21 0 –28 Poor food consumption
21.5 - 35 28.5 - 42 Borderline food consumption
> 35 > 42 Acceptable food consumption
The findings should be presented graphically to best represent proportions within the sampled
group.
65% The distribution of the FCS by each “food consumption group” (i.e. poor
/ borderline / acceptable) should be presented as a bar for each location
as it is carried out.
14%
The % of households consuming each food group can then also be
summarized in a bar chart as demonstrated:
Acceptable FC
21% 90%
Borderline FC
80%
Poor FC 70%
60%
50%
40%
% of HH
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cereals
Salt
Oil / fats
Sugar /
honey /
sweets
dry
vegetables
Pulses /
nuts
Meat /
poultry
Milk / milk
products
Fish
Other questions to consider as part of the analysis include:
• Is there diversity in the local diet?

• Is the diet sufficiently nutritious? What proportions of households have a sufficiently nutritious
diet?
• What are the main sources of proteins for the population?
• What are the most frequently consumed items? Which are less frequently consumed?
Cross-tabulating or triangulation of FCS results with the other core indicators (see Annexes 26-
and the FCS. Correlations support as well a better interpretation and understanding, in case of
What are potential challenges with the FCS?

• As any participatory tool, an introductory discussion should be facilitated. As the FCS should be
part of an overall interview and not a lone standing tool, the overall introduction to the interview
should capture that various topics will be discussed.
• The FCS weighs protein rich elements of the diet stronger than food with micronutrient
importance, e.g. fruits and vegetables, which are considered with lighter weighing. Especially
in linkages with malnutrition, these nutrients need to be considered. It is hence advisable to
be aware when interpreting the FCS, that micronutrient rich foods might not be sufficiently
considered in the analysis, and hence this can be added during the interpretation of the data.
• The recall timeline includes the past 7 days, which for some interviewees might be difficult to
recall. In contrary, a longer term recall, as compared to shorter recall with HDDS/IDDS, will
provide more information about the longer term consumption in the households, and hence
sustainability of any changes and impacts brought about by the intervention.
(see Annex 26 Guidance Note on HDDS). Given focus on particular malnourished members in
the household and linkages to care practices are considered, the IDDS (e.g. under 5 year olds
or pregnant and lactating women (WDDS)) might be the right tool (see Annex 27 Guidance Note
on IDDS). Given longer term impact and sustainability of quality of food consumption and its
adequacy are considered, the FCS might be the right tool (see above).
QUESTIONNAIRE – Food Consumption Score (FCS)
Overview of the questionnaire: This questionnaire seeks to collect data on Household Food
Consumption. This is most likely to be used as part of a baseline and or endline survey and therefore

as directed.
SURVEY INFORMATION
How many days, in the last 7 days, have you eaten the following Number of times (0-7)
food items?
Q36 Cereals (maize porridge, rice, sorghum, millet pasta,
bread, rice or other)
Q37 Roots and tubers (cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes or
other)
Q38 Pulses/legumes/nuts (beans, peas, chick peas or other)
Q39 Vegetables and leaves
Q40 Fruit
Q41 Meat, poultry, offal (beef, goat, lamb, poultry), eggs, fish,
seafood
Q42 Milk/Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese or other)
Q43 Sugar, sugar products, honey
Q44 Oil/fats (oil, fat or butter)
Q45 Condiments (spices, tea, coffee) or other miscellaneous
food
Q46 Food consumption score calculation

(NOT A QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT)
QUALITY CONTROL
Data entry_________________________________ Date___________
For additional guidance on the FCS, refer to WFP’s published guidance: Food consumption
analysis - Calculation and use of the food consumption score in food security analysis,
Version 1, February 2008
Annex 29: Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) Guidance
Note
What is the HFIAS indicator?
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) measures food security and its severity at the
household level.
Why use HFIAS?

The HFIAS is a tool to assess whether households have experienced problems in food access in the
preceding 30 days. The method stems from the idea that the experience of food insecurity causes
predictable reactions and responses that can be measured and quantified through a survey and
summarized in a scale. Qualitative research has shown that households experience food insecurity
in the following ways:
• Feelings of uncertainty or anxiety over food;

• Perceptions that food is of insufficient quantity;
• Perceptions that food is of insufficient quality;
• Reported reductions of food intake;
• Reported consequences of reduced food intake;
• Feelings of shame for resorting to socially unacceptable means to obtain food resources.
A set of key questions based on these aspects have been developed to serve as a composite
indicator for measuring the degree of household food insecurity and compare households along the
same scale and continuum.
Increasing prevalence of food insecurity as measured by the HFIAS can identify seasonal food
insecurity or an impending food crisis, and can be used to measure changes in food security over
time. It is relevant in slow onset crises, protracted crises, chronic food insecurity settings and for
surveillance at local level.
When should HFIAS data be collected?

Surveys should be administered at the same time each year in order to reflect the annual changes
in household food insecurity. The scale is best used to analyze food insecurity during or immediately
after the ‘lean season’ because this period is likely to count the greatest amount of affected
households.
However, for purposes of geographic targeting, use of the scale during the ‘lean season’ may cloud
results. The scale may not be able to distinguish between household food insecurity due to the ‘lean
season’ and households that are chronically food insecure. It is important to make this distinction if
the programme wants to target areas of greatest need.
How is HFIAS data collected?

The HFIAS should be integrated into a household survey (see HFIAS Survey Template below and
Annex 35 Baseline Survey Template).
Respondents are asked a set of nine questions to assess their general level of food security over
the past four weeks (30 days). Questions focus on respondent’s perception of food vulnerability or
stress while other questions inquire about respondent’s behavioral responses to food insecurity.
Once questions are answered, there is a core set of data that can be analysed through different
lenses in order to gain a better understanding of food insecurity in the targeted community.
Questionnaires should be completed in their entirety. As many of the calculations require the total
number of surveys involved, incomplete questionnaires will skew the indicators and falsely represent
conditions in the area.
Before administering the questionnaire, interviewers should discuss questions with key informants
to refine questions and ensure they are relevant and culturally-specific. In particular, definitions for
context-specific terms such as household and lack of resources should be developed and added to
the questionnaire.
Questions are directed toward the person with the most involvement with food preparation in the
household, as for most questions the respondent answers on behalf of the household and all its
members.
There are two types of questions:
• Nine “occurrence” questions that represent a generally increasing level of severity of food
insecurity, and ask whether a specific condition associated with the experience of food insecurity
ever occurred during the previous four weeks (yes or no);
No. Occurrence Questions

1. In the past four weeks, did you worry that your household would not have enough food?
2. In the past four weeks, were you or any household member not able to eat the kinds of
foods you preferred because of a lack of resources?
3. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat a limited variety of
foods due to a lack of resources?
4. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat some foods that
you really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food?
5. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat a smaller meal than
you felt you needed because there was not enough food?
6. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member have to eat fewer meals in a day
because there was not enough food?
7. In the past four weeks, was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your household because
of lack of resources to get food?
8. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry
because there was not enough food?
9. In the past four weeks, did you or any household member go a whole day and night without
eating anything because there was not enough food?
• Nine “frequency of occurrence” questions that are asked as a follow-up to each occurrence
question and inquire about how often a reported condition occurred during the previous four
weeks (rarely, sometimes, often)
The HFIAS occurrence questions are grouped into three domains of food insecurity found to be
common to most cultures. These are:
1. Anxiety and uncertainty about the household food supply:

• Did you worry that your household would not have enough food?
2. Insufficient Quality (includes variety and preferences of the type of food):
• Were you or any household member not able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred because
of a lack of resources?
• Did you or any household member have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of
resources?
• Did you or any household member have to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat
because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food?
3. Insufficient food intake and its physical consequences:

• Did you or any household member have to eat a smaller meal than you felt you needed because
there was not enough food?
• Did you or any household member have to eat fewer meals in a day because there was not
enough food?
• Was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your household because of a lack of resources to
get food?
• Did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough
food?
• Did you or any household member go a whole day and night without eating anything because
How is the HFIAS calculated?

The HFIAS tool yields information on food insecurity at the household level. Four types of indicators
can be calculated to help understand the characteristics of and changes in household food insecurity
in the surveyed population.
Indicator 1: HFIA-related Conditions investigate any level of food security that exists in the
community. It gives the team a general idea of which households have food security issues and
does not provide more in-depth information on the levels of food insecurity. It is calculated by totaling
the number of households that answered a question affirmatively about having any level of food
insecurity, dividing that number by the number of respondents to the question, and multiplying by
100. This provides a percentage of the households surveyed that experience food insecurity.
Household Food Insecurity Percent of households that responded, “yes” to a specific

Access-related Conditions occurrence question. For example, “Percent of households that
ran out of food.”
Households experiencing
condition at any time during Example:
the recall period.
Number of households with resonse = 3 to Q7a
_____________________________________ X 100
Total number of households responding to Q7
Percent of households that responded, “often” to a specific
Households experiencing frequency-of-occurrence question. For example, “Percent of
condition at any given households that ran out of food often.”
frequency
Example:
Number of households with resonse = 3 to Q7a

_____________________________________ X 100
Indicator 2: HFIA-related domain examines food insecurity more specifically, measuring the level of
food insecurity by inquiring about the frequency of food security problems. It is calculated by totaling
the number of households that gave the same response about their level of insecurity (rarely,
sometimes, or often), dividing by the total number of respondents to the question, and multiplying by
100. The quotient is the percent of households that experience food insecurity at the specific level
being considered.
Household Food Insecurity Percent of households that responded, “yes” to any of the
Access-related Domains conditions in a specific domain. For example, “Percent of
households with insufficient food quality.”
Households experiencing any
of the conditions at any level Example:
of severity in each domain.
Number of households with resonse = 1 to Q2
OR 1 to Q3 OR 1 to Q4
_____________________________________ X 100
OR Q3 OR Q4
Indicator 3: HFIA Scale Score looks at a one-month period to understand how much of an effect
food insecurity has on households. Calculation involves three steps. Response options are given
numbers, with higher numbers corresponding to the more frequent occurrence of food insecurity.
First, the range is determined by calculating the lowest and highest possible scores. Next, each
household’s survey is totaled using the scores corresponding to each response level. Lastly,
scores are averaged by summing all of the household survey scores and dividing by the number of
households in the surveys. This provides the indicator of how food insecure the community is on the
whole over a longer term.
HFIAS Score Sum of the frequency-of-occurrence during the past four weeks
(0-27) for the 9 food insecurity-related conditions
Sum frequency-of-occurrence question response code (Q1 +

Q2a + Q3a + Q4a + Q5a + Q6a + Q7a + Q8a + Q9a)
Average HFIAS Score Calculate the average of the Household Food Insecurity Access
Scale Scores
Sum of HFIAS Scores in the sample

_____________________________________ X 100
Number of HFIAS Scores (i.e. households) in the
sample
Indicator 4: HFIA Prevalence investigates the levels of severity of food insecurity. Certain questions
in the survey hold more weight than others and are more indicative of the food insecurity of a
household. Based on household responses to these more serious questions, questionnaires are
used to categorize households as being food secure, mildly insecure, moderately insecure, or
severely insecure (from least to most insecure). This indicator is calculated by dividing the number
of households that fall into a certain category of severity by the total number of households being
categorized, then multiplying by 100 to get the percent of households that are food (in)secure at
that specific level.
What should the HFIAS target be?

The table below illustrates this categorization, which is designed to ensure that a household’s set of
responses places them into a single, unique category.
Frequency
Question Rarely Sometimes Often
1 2 3
1a
2a
3a
4a
5a
6a
7a
8a
9a
- food secure - moderately food insecure
- mildly food insecure - severely food insecure
Cross-tabulating or triangulation of HFIAS results with the other core indicators (See Annexes 26-
and the HFIAS. Correlations support as well a better interpretation and understanding, in case of
What should the target be?

Because the HFIAS is a continuous indicator that acts as a relative measure of food insecurity, no
threshold or target value has been established. Different population groups or geographic areas
can be compared by situating them along a continuum or placing them into categories based on
the measured score, scale or prevalence, and conclusions drawn about their relative levels of food
insecurity.
What are potential challenges with the HFIAS?

• As any participatory tool, an introductory discussion should be facilitated. As the HFIAS should
• The HFIAs demands a long recall period, this might be difficult for some interviewees and
households and can be supported with the creation of an event calendar, seasonal calendar or
festival calendar which can support the definition and identification of the various timelines and
recalls throughout the year.
• The HFIAS is a good tool to compare annual changes and overall changes of the household,
hence linking to impact measurement of the project or intervention. Combined with the other
core indicators (see Annexes 26-33), the HFIAS provides a complementary piece of information
to assess and understand household food security levels.
• The HFIAS should not be used for identifying beneficiaries of assistance. The data is relevant
for community targeting, but not individual household targeting.
• The HFIAS is incorporates coping strategies employed by the household. Hence the coping
strategy index can be extracted from the HFIAS data collection, and depending on the context,
can be used as a separate indicator on household livelihoods and food security levels.
• The HFIAS can be facilitated as part of a households level surveys, but can as well be used
as a discussion point in a focus groups discussion within the community or a groups of key
informants, e.g. women and care takers, farmers, elders, chiefs etc.
QUESTIONNAIRE - Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS)

Overview of the questionnaire: This questionnaire seeks to collect data on Household Dietary

• Insert correct code number (1, 2 etc) or circle appropriate answer, as directed.
SURVEY INFORMATION
Q1. In the past 4 weeks, did you have to worry about food for your household?
Question Response Options CODE
1 In the past four weeks, did you worry that 0=No (skip to Q2)
your household would not have enough 1=Yes
food?
1a How often did this happen? 1=Rarely (once or twice in the
past four weeks)
2=Sometimes (three to ten times in
the past four weeks)
3=Often (more than ten times in
2 In the past four weeks, were you or any 0=No (skip to Q3)
household member not able to eat the 1=Yes
kinds of foods that you preferred because
of a lack of resources?
2a How often did this happen? 1=Rarely (once or twice in the past
four weeks)
3 In the past four weeks, did you or any 0=No (skip to Q4)
household member have to eat a limited 1=Yes
variety of foods due to a lack of resources?
four weeks)
household member have to eat some foods 1=Yes
that you really did not want to eat because
of a lack of resources to obtain other types
of food?
four weeks)
household member have to eat a smaller 1=Yes
meal that you felt you needed because
four weeks)
household member have to eat fewer meals 1=Yes
in a day because there was not enough
food?
four weeks)
7 In the past four weeks, was there ever no 0=No (skip to Q8)
food to eat of any kind in your household 1=Yes
because of a lack of resources to get food?
four weeks)
household member go to sleep at night 1=Yes
hungry because there was not enough
food?
four weeks)
9 In the past four weeks, did you or any 0=No
household member go a whole day and 1=Yes
night without eating anything because there
was not enough food?
four weeks)
Q2. HFIAS calculation (NOT A QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT)
QUALITY CONTROL
Data entry_________________________________ Date___________
For additional guidance on the HFIAS, refer to FANTA’s published guidance: Household
Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide
VERSION 3, August 2007.
Annex 30: Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP)
Guidance Note
What is the MAHFP indicator?
This indicator captures “changes in a household’s ability to address vulnerability in such a way as to
ensure that food is available above a minimum level [9 months] all year round”.
Groups below the poverty threshold generally have less than 9 Months of Adequate Household
Food Provisioning (MAHFP). This means that these households can only assure that all household
members received adequate food for less than 9 months in the year and that the other 3 months of
the year, they survive through other activities and coping strategies, e.g. decreased consumption,
seeking credit, selling productive assets, obtaining informal private transfers, and/or utilizing
government and/or NGO support through social protection strategies such as provision of food
assistance etc.
The number of MAHFP generally varies based on the level of household production, assets,
and cash earnings available to purchase food. This can also vary based on the shocks and risks
households face during a particular year, and their capacity to cope with them.
MAHFP is also known as the “annual food gap” (acknowledging that food insecure households
generally face a “lean season”), and helps to categorize groups and measure their capacity to cope
with food insecurity.
Why use MAHFP?

Measuring the MAHFP can capture the combined effects of a range of interventions and strategies,
such as improved agricultural production, storage and interventions that increase the household’s
purchasing power.
When should MAHFP data be collected?

It should be collected during the period of greatest food shortages (e.g. just before harvesting), to
increase accuracy of recall of the months when household food supplies are insufficient. Follow-up
data should be collected at the same time of year.
How is MAHFP data collected?

Data for this indicator should be collected by first screening out those households that were able
to provide for their household food needs throughout the entire year (see Annex 28: MAHFP
Survey Template and Annex 35: Baseline Survey Template). Those households that were unable
to adequately provide for the household (Q1 in template) then go on to Q2 where they are asked
to identify in which months (during the past 12 months) they did not have access to sufficient food
to meet their household needs. The purpose of these questions is to identify the months in which
there is limited access to food regardless of the source of the food (i.e. production, purchase, barter
or food assistance).
Although the response options start with the month of January, the respondent is asked to think back
over the previous 12 months, starting with the current month. Adjust the months according to when
you conduct the survey so that the current month appears first.
These questions should be asked of the person (adult) who is responsible for food preparation in
the household. If the food was prepared by a child/youth, the question should not be asked of the
child/youth who actually prepared food but rather of the adult (usually a woman) who makes the
daily decisions about what will be prepared and eaten. The questions refer to the food needs of the
household as a whole, not any single member of the household.
Those households that respond to Q1 saying they did have adequate food supply throughout the
past year should still be included in the tabulation of the denominator of the indicator (“total number
of households”) or the level of food insecurity will be overestimated (see below).
How is the MAHFP calculated?

The tabulation of responses is a tally of total months.
Step 1: First, calculate the MAHFP (0-12) for each household surveyed in the sample:
MAHFP = 12 months minus the total number of months out of the previous 12 that the household
was unable to meet their food needs.
(12) - Sum (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 )
Step 2: Calculate an average for all the households surveyed in the sample. The denominator
should include all households interviewed, even those who did not experience any months of
inadequate household food provisioning.
Average MAHFP = Sum of the MAHFPs for all households in the sample
Total Number of Households
What should a MAHFP target be?

For longer term programmes, this is still a grey area. However, two options are proposed to
determine appropriate targets.
1. The first option is to use the months of adequate food provisioning of the top tercile (33%) of the
households as a target. The MAHFP indicator is an average of all the households in the sample,
as explained above. To set the target the average, not of the entire sample, but only of one-third
of the sample, those households that scored highest on the MAHFP can be taken. To do this,
first list the MAHFP scores of all the households in order from lowest to highest, then cut the
sample into equal thirds. Calculate the average MAHFP score of the top tercile and use this as
the target for the entire population.
2. Because projects using the MAHFP indicator often include interventions aimed at increasing
household income, surveys sometimes collect income or economic status information. If income
data are available, the sample could be divided into three income groups (terciles of income),
and the average months of adequate food provisioning could be calculated for the richest
income tercile. The average MAHFP in the richest 33 % of households can then serve as a
target number of months of adequate food provisioning. Where income data are not available,
income groups can be defined using proxies, such as possession of assets or other items found
to be highly correlated with income in the project population.
Cross-tabulating or triangulation of MAHFP results with the other core indicators (See Annexes 26-
and the MAHFP. Correlations support as well a better interpretation and understanding, in case of
What are potential challenges with the MAHFP?

• As any participatory tool, an introductory discussion should be facilitated. As the MAHFP should
• Interviewed individuals and households might be confused with the concept of months. The
creation of an event calendar, seasonal calendar or festival calendar might be feasible to
support the definition and identification of the various months throughout the year. A ranking of
the various months by food sufficiency levels might support this too, and small cards with local
names of the months can be used to lay the months out from most food sufficient to least food
sufficient.
• The definition of adequate and/or sufficient food depends on the local context and needs to
be defined locally. To do so, local food consumption habits (e.g. key staple cereal) and the
number of households members need to be investigated to develop a level of adequacy which is
acceptable. WFP will likely have a local calculation for the provision of a general ration distribution
for a household, which could be used as a reference and further adaption for adequacy.
• Interviewees, especially if the most vulnerable, might state to always be hungry and never have
access to sufficient food. Given this situation it is recommendable to nevertheless establish
seasonality of hunger throughout the year where they are hungrier than other times. This will
hence still permit a comparative analysis with the baseline and endline data, following the
project implementation.
• Different livelihoods (e.g. agricultural vs pastoral) might have different ways of assessing their
sufficient or adequate access to food. Agriculturists stock their harvest and hence have an
easy access to the information, whereas pastoralists exchange livestock throughout the year
to ensure household level access to food. This needs to be considered during the sampling,
analysis and interpretation stage of the data.
• Differences of MAHFP responses may similarly happen in urban and rural areas. Rural areas
might again rather rely on their own production and stock and hence sufficiency might be easy
to assess. Urban households might be more market dependent and hence will have different
elements to consider to assess their food sufficiency. As above, this needs to be considered
during the sampling, analysis and interpretation stage of the data.
QUESTIONNAIRE - Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP)

Overview of the questionnaire: This questionnaire seeks to collect data on months of adequate
household food provisioning. This is most likely to be used as part of a baseline and or endline
survey and therefore also forms part of the ACF FSL baseline template.
as directed.
SURVEY INFORMATION
Q1. I would like to ask you about your household’s food supply during Yes No
different months of the year. When responding to these questions,
please think back over the last 12 months, from now to the same time
last year.
(Circle the answer given)
Were there months, in the past 12 months, in which you did not have 1 0
enough food to meet your family’s needs?
If the answer is no, discontinue questioning.

If the answer is yes, proceed to Q2.
Q2. Which were the months in the past 12 months during which you did not have enough
food to meet your family’s needs? (include any kind of food from any source, including
own production, purchase, exchange, from food aid, or borrowing)
(Do not read the list of months out. Circle the months that the respondent identifies as months
in which the household did not have enough food to meet their needs. Use a season calendar if
needed to help the respondent remember different months. Probe to make sure the respondent
has thought about all the past 12 months.)
1 January 8 July
2 December 9 June
3 November 10 May
4 October 11 April
5 September 12 March
6 August 13 February
Total months (insert total number of months circled as months without enough food) ________
____________________________________________
QUALITY CONTROL
Data entry_________________________________ Date___________
For additional guidance on the MAHFP, refer to FANTA’s published guidance: Months of
Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) for Measurement of Household Food
Access: Indicator Guide VERSION 4, June 2010
Annex 31: Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) Guidance Note
What is the Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) and how should it be used?
MUAC is used for children 6-59 months. As it is essential to use 6 months as the age cut-off, it is not
recommended to use a height cut-off as a proxy for 6 months of age since in a stunted population
many infants 6 months or older will have a height less than 65 centimetres (cm). If the birth date
is unconfirmed, use the recall of the mother/caregiver to estimate the infant’s age. As a last resort,
children between height of 65-110cm can be included in the measurement.
MUAC is a general indicator for risk to morbidity and mortality.
Why measure the MUAC?

ACF food security and livelihood activities are aligned to have a contributing effect to the prevention
of malnutrition. Hence impact of food security and livelihood interventions should have a measurable
impact on malnutrition at household and community level. The MUAC is only one anthropometric
indicator that can be used as a proxy indicator to establish the change of risk to malnutrition. As
ACF will not be able to do representative anthropometric nutrition, SMART surveys as baseline
and endline for each FSL intervention, due to cost, time and other resources, the MUAC is a good
indicator for a nutrition consideration while measuring impact of FSL interventions.
How to take MUAC measurement

For demonstration, see flow chart below for guidance, and here for steps taken to establish correct
MUAC measurement. The measurement should be part of a population-based survey applied to all
the households in the sample (see below MUAC Survey Template and Annex 35 Baseline Survey
Template).
• NB: MUAC is always taken on the left arm.

• Measure the length of the child’s upper arm; between the bone at the top of the shoulder and the
tip of the elbow (the child’s arm should be bent).
• Find the midpoint of the upper arm and mark it with a pen. It is recommended to use a string
instead of the MUAC tape to find the midpoint.
• The child’s arm should then be relaxed, falling alongside his/her body.
• Wrap the MUAC tape around the child’s arm, such that all of it is in contact with the child’s skin.
It should be neither too tight nor too loose.
• For the numbered tapes, feed the end of the tape down through the first opening and up through
the third opening. The measurement is read from the middle window where the arrows point
inward. MUAC can be recorded with a precision of 1 millimetre (mm).
• For the simple three-color tape (red, yellow, green), slide the end through the first opening and
then through the second opening. Read the colour that shows through the window at the point
the two arrows indicate.
How can the MUAC data be analysed and presented?
In the context of monitoring and evaluation, the MUAC is not used to assess the prevalence of
malnutrition or the prevalence of risk to mortality in a population (e.g. children under five years of
age), but to establish a change over time of the number of children in participant households which
fit into a certain category of MUAC thresholds.
The following thresholds apply:
Colour MUAC Measurement Indicator

Red < 11.5cm Severe Acute Malnutrition
Orange 11.5 – 12.5cm Moderate Acute Malnutrition
Yellow 12.5 - 13.5 cm At risk of Acute Malnutrition
Green > 13.5 cm No Acute Malnutrition
The MUAC results can be presented in form of a bar chart (see below), indicating the proportion of
each category present in the overall sample. Colouring in the respective colours may help the
interpretation of the assessed situation.
MUAC in IGA BNF’s Households, Warrap State

(% of children in each category)
100%
24%
80%
54%
22% Below 110
73%
60%
110 - 125
40% 125 - 135

23%
37%
Above 135
20% 17%
23%
17% 7%
0% 0% 3%
Twic 200 Twic 2009 Twic 2010
Cross-tabulating or triangulation of MUAC results with the other core indicators (See Annexes 26-
and the MUAC. Correlations support as well a better interpretation and understanding, in case of
What are potential challenges with the MUAC?

• As for any participatory tool, an introductory discussion should be facilitated. As the MUAC
should be part of an overall interview and not a lone standing tool, the overall introduction to the
• MUAC measurement use the left arm of the child, as the vast majority of people in the world are
right handed. Hence the left arm is less used and less powerful, hence the muscle will be slightly
less strong and developed. This will permit a correct measurement of the nutritional status,
instead of the muscular development on the right arm.
• The nutrition team can be of help to train the monitors and FSL team in the taking of the MUAC
measurement to ensure coherent and quality information being collected.
• The number of children under five years of age in the households between the baseline and
endline data collection might change, due to children maturing. This is generally not a problem
due to several aspects: a) often new births will enter the sample and replace matured children,
and b) the measurement does not try to establish comparative data for the same child before
and after, but the number of children below a certain threshold. Hence the important aspect is to
facilitate a similar number of children under five in the sample.
• An interviewee household might host several children at the time of the interview. Similarly, in a
polygamous household, the number of children might by plenty. It is of importance to establish
the “real” children belonging to the household participating in the project or intervention (not
cousins and neighbours), as the project’s impact on the nutritional status is tried to be measured
with the MUAC.
• The nutritional status of children and vulnerable populations often underlies a seasonality linked
to food security, hence reducing during the lean season and improving during the post-harvest
season. It is therefore important to understand the timing of the baseline data collection, ensure
that endline data is collected in the same season or at least analysis and interpretation are
considering the difference in timing and seasonality, which will explain the difference in results.
• In general and due to the above, it might be interesting to take the MUAC measurement more
regular (not only during baseline and endline) to be able to continuously observe and monitor
change in nutritional status of the under five years of age households members , throughout the
implementation of the project or interventions.
• Linkages to the nutrition programme team screening exercises and surveillance activities should
be established to use the existing MUAC/anthropometric data, and as well contribute with the
taken MUAC measurements.
• Lastly, if during the MUAC measurement for the above M&E purposes a child is identified to be
in the red or orange categories (severely or moderately malnourished), the FSL or M&E team
needs to refer the child to the next health or nutrition centre to receive treatment and attention.
This would demonstrate best practice of integrated programming between the FSL and nutrition
teams.
QUESTIONNAIRE – Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC)

Overview of the questionnaire: This questionnaire seeks to collect data on Mid Upper Arm
Circumference. This is most likely to be used as part of a baseline and or endline survey and
therefore also forms part of the ACF FSL baseline template.
• For MUAC measurement fill the child’s name, age and MUAC reading into the table:
MUAC readings of all children under five years of age ( or between 65-110cm height)
present in the household during the time of interview:
Name of the child Age or Height MUAC reading in mm
1
2
3
4
5
6
QUALITY CONTROL
Data entry_________________________________ Date___________
Annex 32: Market Price Survey Guidance Note
What is the Market Price Survey?
A market survey is an analysis done in order to understand the local economic exchange structure,
the way that markets are performing and the terms of trade.
Why use the Market Price Survey?

While subsistence activities remain key sources of livelihood in many rural societies, markets form
the backbone of economies everywhere. Today, most people live in cash or mixed economies and
are at least partially reliant on markets to meet their basic household needs. Markets and systems
of informal exchange are particularly important for urban households and displaced persons who will
have negligible, if any, home production.
Additionally, market prices have a major impact on household’s food and nutrition security during
lean seasons, when many households tend to complement their own production and empty stocks
with purchase on local markets. Hence, increasing food prices are directly linked with decreasing
economic access to food and other items on the markets, leading to food insecurity.
The market survey is therefore used in order to inform actors on price stability, supply and demand
of goods and services, viability of a cash-based intervention and availability and access to food. It
provides data in order to make an accurate analysis of the market and to understand:
• Linkages between markets on different levels (national, regional, district)

• How markets have been affected by the shock, how well they are functioning and what are the
main constraints on their activity
• The extent to which market disruption has affected food availability and food access, using
terms of trade as a food access indicator
• The extent to which markets can deliver food and other essential commodities at affordable
prices for affected populations
• The functioning of labour markets and their contribution to household food access and livelihoods
in the area
• The capacity of markets to absorb large-scale sales of assets
• The appropriateness of cash-based interventions
• The potential for local/regional procurement of relief materials and impacts on prices
• The triangulation of information and data to ensure appropriate interpretation and measuring
of impact, e.g. linkages to household income and expenditure pattern, dietary diversity, HFIAS
and MAHFP, etc.
When should the Market Price Survey data be collected?

Regular market price surveys should be collected to follow up on trends (availability, accessibility),
to better understand the impact of interventions on the market and to serve as early warning
component. The frequency of the surveys has to be adapted to the context, the season, the
resources and the capacities to analyze (bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly, pre- and post distribution
etc). During the lean season biweekly data collection might be indicated, in the post harvest season
monthly might be sufficient.
Market data collections needs to be included in assessments in order to form a baseline to which all
future information can be compared.
How is Market Price Survey data collected?
Methods should be participatory and allow key market players to sketch the various factors influencing
the market chain. Discussions with traders and households on the existing problems and solutions
combined with very simple price analysis can be a good basis to identify appropriate responses to
address lack of effective demand and potentially low market supplies. The recommended approach
entails working with people who know the markets, both domestic and regional, and are familiar
with the history of the area. Market information sources can be both quantitative and qualitative.
Qualitative sources refer to consumers’, suppliers and traders’ opinions and perceptions, while
quantitative data includes prices in a particular place, and volumes traded.
Qualitative data is derived from semi-structured interviews with key informants, discussions with
focus groups, and observation. Sampling of traders is usually purposive. Sampling of households
(for general data collection including some specific data on markets) can be purposive or random.
What needs to be included in the data collection process?

Key information that should be collected include:
• Geographic location of markets; areas covered; commodities traded

• Sources of staple goods; trade flows; constraints on transport
• Price movements for a reduced food basket and fuel commodities
• Impacts on market supply (food availability) and consumer demand
• Impacts on labour supply and daily wage rates
• Access to capital investment by traders
• Household terms of trade
For the regular market price survey, the focus can be on the price trends for commodities and
income sources and their relationship (see template below and in Toolkit 22).
How can the data be analysed and presented?

The data is presented in tables for detailed reference and graph development to highlight trends
(see template below and in Toolkit 22).
In an accompanying narrative the relationship between potential income and expenses should be
discussed (Terms of trade table and graph below). Local prices and trends should be related to
regional or national trends (if available) to check if the area surveyed complies with the overall
situation development or needs specific attention.
Where available, the analysis should refer to previous years to obtain a deeper understanding of
market mechanisms, seasonality and their impact on the surveyed population.
What are potential challenges with the Market Price Survey?

• As any participatory tool, an introduction should be facilitated to explain to the key informant or
group the various topics which will be discussed during the interview.
• The standardisation of units and samples needs to be ensured, at least within the same region
or country. For example, a “tin” of cereal will need to be weight and converted into kilogram’s to
make it comparable. Similarly, the market price collection for e.g. a goat, will need an agreement
on what type of goat, i.e. species, size, age, gender, etc. Once this is agreed, all market monitors
will be able to ensure the collection of prices for similar samples. Similarly different brands of
the same product, e.g. soap or milk powder, might be available. In this particular case, the most
frequented and preferred brand by the most vulnerable population should be chosen for price
monitoring.
• Terms of trade can be established for various goods or services. Depending on the local context
and livelihoods, terms of trade between livestock and cereal, e.g. ram and millet, or casual
labour and cereal, e.g. one day labour and millet, can be established and provide important
complementary information to understand household food access.
• In some contexts, e.g. following a quick onset emergency or where markets are controlled,
the black market might be an important component to consider, when trying to estimate and
measure household access to food, services and other goods. It might be difficult to obtain
concrete information, and hence close collaboration with the national team and partners, e.g.
drivers and guards, might be helpful, as they tend to have access to this type of information.
• Price instability and fluctuation is often difficult to estimate, predict and interpret. Hence additional
qualitative information and triangulation of information is of utmost importance to ensure correct
interpretation and conclusion of the collected available data. Seasonal price fluctuation might be
predictable as such, but timely onset of the fluctuation might change according to production,
supply and demand, population movements, market controls, festivals and other mechanisms
and events.
• Often market systems are closely linked and connect a large geographical area, i.e. from sub-
regional to national and local level. It can be difficult to cover the entire market network, and
hence close collaboration with other partners and stakeholders might be interesting to reach a
larger coverage and better understanding of market dynamics. More so if working with partners,
a clear agreement and definition of units and samples needs to be ensured (see above).
• The choice of markets to be monitored should be considered in link with other market monitoring
systems. Often government and other partners, e.g. FEWSnet, collect market price information
for bigger markets and economic centres. These are valuable data and information to cover a
larger area of market dynamics and linkages. Nevertheless, the most vulnerable population,
and hence population targeted by project interventions, will frequent and use their local markets
rather than large economic centres for simple reasons of access and travel distance. Hence
identification of local markets and price collection on that level are important and complementary
to the larger picture price collections.
QUESTIONNAIRE – Market Price Survey (see Toolkit 22)

Price Monitoring
Country: NB : you need to ensure that your local staple measure units are
translated into kg !
Base:
Name of local measure: 1 local measure= kg
Site/market: Local currency: 1 Euro/$ =

IN KG Year : year
Staple Jan feb march apr may june july aug sept oct nov dec jan
Maize 300 250 250
Rice 275 300 300
Cassava 325 350 375
Beans 350 350 360
Sorghum 375 450 400


IN LOCAL
CURRENCY Year : year
Income Jan feb march apr may june july aug sept oct nov dec jan
source
Daily 1500 1750 1500
labour
Sale of 10000 8500 8100
ani-
mals
Sale of 10000 9000 6000
cash
crop
Sale of 5500 9000 6000
fish
Sale of 3500 3000 3000
fire-
wood
Year year
Jan feb march apr may june july aug sept oct nov dec jan
staple 5,00 7,00 6,00 - - - - - - - - - -
1 with
income
1
staple 33,33 34,00 32,40 - - - - - - - - - -
1 with
income
2
staple 5,45 5,83 5,00 - - - - - - - - - -
2 with
income
1
staple 36,36 28,33 27,00 - - - - - - - - - -
2 with
income
2

Annex 33: Counting Beneficiaries Guidance Note
What is the counting beneficiary indicator?
Counting beneficiaries is a basic process indicator to follow ACF project or programme implementation,
and its achievements in concordance with Project Log Frame (LFA) beneficiary agreements. ACF
has a format designed and used across all missions, which is the Activity Progress Report (APR,
see Toolkit 14), indicating every months how much of each activity has been reached. Beneficiaries
are counted according to ACF protocol.
Why use beneficiary counting?

Counting beneficiaries has a twofold objective: it facilitates the measuring of achievements in
accordance with the project proposal, and it permits the establishment of coverage of the project
activities, in correlation with the overall population identified to be in need. Often more beneficiaries
are reached then initially planned for. Beneficiary counting is a performance indicator.
When should beneficiary counting data be collected?

Beneficiary counting data is collected from the beginning of the project implementation. The goals of
how many beneficiaries the project will reach are established in the proposal and LFA. Throughout
the programme implementation a monthly update of how many beneficiaries have been reached,
will be added to the already achieved. Hence at any moment, it should be possible to define how
many beneficiaries have been supported and reached out of the overall goal.
Counting beneficiary data the basic rules:

1. Direct and indirect beneficiaries are counted separately ( see details below)
2. Sectoral (WASH, NUT, FSL) beneficiaries are counted separately
3. Beneficiaries are not double counted in case they participate in several activities under
the same sector, e.g. FSL OGA and cooking activities.
How to count beneficiaries?

Project Beneficiaries are those who will derive some benefit from the implementation of the project.
Two types of beneficiaries can be defined:
✓✓ Direct Beneficiary
✓✓ Indirect Beneficiary
Indirect
DIRECT BENEFICIARY (D)
Direct
D
Direct beneficiaries are those verifiable individuals who participate
in a project conducted by ACF and/or its implementing partners and D
receive some benefits from the project (training, input, assets, care, ACF Implementing
Implementing
ACF
services, etc). Partners
Partners
✓✓ ACF Direct beneficiaries (Da) D

DAA D
Dpp
✓✓ Implementing partners Direct beneficiaries (Dp)
I
Total Direct beneficiaries D per sector is the sum of Da + Dp without double counting
INDIRECT BENEFICIARY (I)

Indirect beneficiaries are those living within the catchment area of the project that can obtain a
benefit but haven’t direct contact with an ACF intervention.
Case 1: ACF & Partners targeting different beneficiaries
✓✓ Example Food Security and Livelihoods
ACF is targeting 2000 people (Da) for emergency food assistance and is providing food as well to a
local NGO for distribution to 500 people (Dp) in another area.
This number of 2500 (Da + Dp ) with be gathered to monitor the beneficiary indicator.
2000 direct 500 direct

beneficiaries beneficiaries
DA = 2.000 Dp = 500 D = 2.500
Case 2: ACF & Partners targeting different beneficiaries and shared beneficiaries
ACF is targeting 400 households with an agricultural/income generating activity programme. This
presents 2000 people (with an average of 5 people per household). The implementing partner is
responsible for the IEC component for 100 households and for 400 households not included in the
income generating activity programme.
Hence Da = 2000 ; Dp = 500 of which with have to deduce 100 people already included in Da; total
D (Da + Dp) without double-counting will add-up to 2400.
ACF Partners
500 direct
2000 direct beneficiaries
beneficiaries
100 “shared” beneficiaries
DA = 2.000 Dp = 500 D = 2.400
Case 3: ACF & Partners targeting shared beneficiaries
ACF is targeting 2000 beneficiaries involved in a vegetable gardening programme. In the same
area, the local partner (an NGO specialised in adult education/literacy) is targeting 500 people,
improving the management capacity of group leaders.
As these 500 people are already part of the beneficiaries of the overall ACF programme they will be
counted as Dp but to avoid double counting Da + Dp will be equal to 2000.
ACF
DA = 2.000
Partners
500 direct
Dp = 500 D = 2.000
beneficiaries
2000 direct beneficiaries
How to define the catchment area for counting indirect beneficiaries?
In both, urban and rural contexts, the expected number of people who could indirectly benefit from
the project in a given district, ward, village or adequate administrative division of intervention, needs
to be considered.
People could also indirectly benefit from the services or provision of support, such as cases of
farmers benefiting from veterinary training, or students benefiting from the training for data collection.
What are potential challenges with the beneficiary counting?

• Population targeted through mass media (radio, newspaper, TV…) done by ACF, should be
considered as indirect beneficiaries, as there is no direct contact established with the project,
unless direct impact of the project is measured through a specific survey (KAP survey or a
similar assessment).
• Staff members of local ministries, trained or supervised by ACF are considered direct
beneficiaries, as they benefit from technical support and capacity building from ACF.
• Populations targeting in SMART anthropometric surveys or assessments should never be
counted as beneficiaries (direct or indirect). Those identified as malnourished are referred for
treatment and counted as beneficiaries at the moment they enter the programme.
• Most often, the direct beneficiaries of surveillance or early warning systems will be members of
local institutions such as governmental early warning system, ministries etc., as they received
training or capacity building. Hence the beneficiaries will be calculated on the basis of the
number of people supported through trainings, inputs, etc…The population that will benefit from
the surveillance system in place will be considered as indirect beneficiaries, as they have no
direct contact with the project but they benefit from living in an area that is regularly monitored in
such a way to alert relevant stakeholders to act upon a degradation of the situation (e.g. EWS,
GIS, nutrition surveillance).
• When working with local partners (CBOs, NGOs, Cooperatives, etc), ACF direct beneficiaries
are the members of the local partners receiving the training (15 persons), and the direct
beneficiaries of the local partners are the families receiving the services or the inputs (400
families= 2000 beneficiaries counting an average of 5 persons/ family). Hence this brings it to a
total of direct beneficiaries are: 2000 + 15= 2015 beneficiaries.
For additional guidance on the Beneficiary Counting, refer to ACF’s guidance: Counting
Beneficiary, ACF International, 2011.
Annex 34: Baseline Survey Guidance Note
What is a baseline survey?
A baseline survey assesses the situation before project activities commence and gives measurements
for indicators before monitoring of change against these begins. This provides benchmark data,
such that M&E activities can assess progress against this and the extent to which the project has
made a difference. It is difficult to measure the impact of a project without having assessed the
starting situation.
A baseline survey is therefore a critical part of commencing monitoring activities.
When should a baseline survey be completed?

At the outset of a project, but before project activities begin. Similarly surveys should also be
completed once project activities cease, as an endline survey, to see what change has happened
since activities occurred.
How should the baseline survey template be completed?

The proposed Baseline Survey Template may cover more than is needed for a specific project
baseline, or may have less than is needed. The template is supposed to serve as a starting point
for the survey. The project team should modify it as appropriate, deleting or adding sections as
required.
How to complete the questionnaire:

• Complete the survey Information section with the relevant information:
èè Title the survey (e.g. Food Security and Livelihoods baseline in XX location - January 2011)
èè Code the survey: 2 first letters of the intervention area, ACF contract code, Nature of the
survey
èè Organization name: ACF
èè Survey period: month and year
• Where boxes are provided for answers, please insert the correct code number to the answer
(e.g. 1, 2 etc.).
• Where multiple choice answer options are provided without a box, circle the appropriate answer.
Components of the Baseline Survey

According to the chosen core and thematic indicators various components will need to be covered
in the Baseline Survey. The following tools are discussed in additional annexes and guidance notes:

• Severity of Household Food Insecurity measured by Household Food Insecurity Access
Scale (HFIAS) (Annex 29)
• Availability of Sufficient Food on Household level measured by Months of Adequate
Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) (Annex 30)
• Risk to malnutrition of children under 5 years of age in the household measured by Mid
Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) (Annex 31)
Annex 35: Baseline Survey Template
All FSL Projects - BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE
Overview of the questionnaire: This questionnaire is the basis for all FSL baseline surveys.
Depending on the project type, sections can be deleted and new sections added in line with project
activities and survey objectives.

as directed.
1 - SURVEY INFORMATION
Q1. Questionnaire Number: | W || W |-| V || V |-| H || H |

Q2. Date of interview (Month/Day/Year): _ _/_ _/_ _ _ _
Q3. Location (country, village):__________________
Q4. Interviewer name (& number where appropriate): _________________________________
_________
Q5. Beneficiary name (& number where appropria
te):__________________________________________
2. GENERAL HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION Responses

Q6. Name of Household (HH) Head: _________________ __________

Q7. Gender of HH Head: 1 = Male ; 2 =Female

|__||__|
Q8. Age of HH Head:
Q9. Marital Status of HH head: 1 = Married 2 = Single 3 = Widowed 4
= Divorced
HH information (enter numbers in A B-Under 5 C-5 to 18 D-19-60 E-Over

the relevant boxes, including the Total 60
respondent in calculations) M F M F M F M F
G10. How many people live in the HH?

G11. How many orphans live in the HH?
G12. How many people in the HH work?
(e.g. to farming or other activities)
G13. How many have been sick
continuously for the past three months?
G14. How many people in HH cannot work
due to health problems (illness, disability)?
G15. How many members have earned
money for the past 3 months?

Q16. What means of transportation does the HH owns? (multiple answers can be circled)
1 Animal 3 Motorbike 7 Nothing
2 Bicycle 6 Car 8 Other (specify) _____________
3. FOOD SOURCES AND STOCKS
Q17. In order of importance, what have been the 4 main ways the HH has sourced food in
the past month? (Rank the 4 main sources, with 1=most important, 4=least important)
1 Purchase 8 Bartered
2 Own agricultural 9 Debt reimbursement in kind
production (crops etc)
3 Livestock own production 10 Income in kind
4 Food Aid 11 Exchange with assets
5 Assistance from friends & 12 Wild food
relatives
6 Other donations 13 Seed stocks
7 Borrowed/taken on credit 14 Begging
15 Other (please specify) ______________________________________
What is the total quantity (in Kg) of the following that the HH current has in stock? (Rank
the 4 main sources, with 1=most important, 4=least important)

Type Quantity Type Quantity
(Kg) (Kg)
Q18 Wheat Q23 Rice
Q19 Sorghum Q24 Pulses (beans, peas
etc)
Q20 Maize Q25 Potatoes
Q21 Millet Q26 Cowpeas
Q22 Groundnut Q27 Other (please specify)
____________________
Q28. How long will the stocks last the HH?

1 Less than 2 weeks
2 2-4 weeks
3 1-2 months
4 2-4 months
5 More than 4 months
4. HH FOOD CONSUMPTION Responses
Currently, how many meals are eaten daily by the following HH 1 2 3 4 5

members? 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5=More than 4
Q29 HH members aged Under 5
Q30 HH members aged 5 to 18
Q31 HH members aged 19-60
Q32 HH members aged Over 60
Q33. Now I would like to ask you about your household’s food supply during Yes No
different months of the year. When responding to these questions, please
think back over the last 12 months, from now to the same time last year.
Circle the answer given (Q33 Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning
Were there months, in the past 12 months, in which you did not have 1 0
enough food to meet your family’s needs?
If the answer is no, move onto Q35. If the answer is yes, proceed to Q34.
Q34. Which were the months in the past 12 months during which you did not have enough
food to meet your family’s needs? (include any kind of food from any source, including
own production, purchase, exchange, from food aid, or borrowing)
(Do not read the list of months out. Circle the months that the respondent identifies as months
in which the household did not have enough food to meet their needs. Use a season calendar if
needed to help the respondent remember different months. Probe to make sure the respondent
has thought about all the past 12 months.)
1 January 8 July
2 December 9 June
3 November 10 May
4 October 11 April
5 September 12 March
6 August 13 February
Total months (insert total number of months circled as months without enough food) _________
___________________________________________
Q35. Which of the following food items/groups have you or anyone else in your HH eaten
yesterday (in the last 24 hours) during the day and at night.
(The question should be asked of the person who is responsible for food preparation, or if that
person is unavailable, of another adult who was present and ate in the household the previous
day. Read the list of foods below to check for Household Dietary Diversity. Circle the food in
question if anyone in the household ate it. Insert any local foods [e.g. ugali, nshima], , bread, rice
noodles, biscuits, or any other foods made from millet, sorghum, maize, rice, wheat, or any other
locally available grain)
(Circle the answer, Yes=1, No=0) Yes No
A Cereals (maize porridge, rice, sorghum, millet pasta, bread, rice or 1 0
other)
B Roots and tubers (cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes or other) 1 0
C Pulses/legumes/nuts (beans, peas, chick peas or other) 1 0
D Vegetables and leaves 1 0
E Fruit 1 0
F Meat, poultry, offal (beef, goat, lamb, poultry) 1 0
G Fish and seafood 1 0
H Milk/Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese or other) 1 0
I Eggs 1 0
J Sugar, sugar products, honey 1 0
K Oil/fats (oil, fat or butter) 1 0
L Condiments (spices, tea, coffee) or other miscellaneous food 1 0
How many days, in the last 7 days, have you eaten the following Number of times (0-7)
food items?
Q36 Cereals (maize porridge, rice, sorghum, millet pasta,
bread, rice or other)
Q37 Roots and tubers (cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes or
other)
Q38 Pulses/legumes/nuts (beans, peas, chick peas or other)
Q39 Vegetables and leaves
Q40 Fruit
Q41 Meat, poultry, offal (beef, goat, lamb, poultry), eggs, fish
and seafood
Q42 Milk/Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese or other)
Q43 Sugar, sugar products, honey
Q44 Oil/fats (oil, fat or butter)
Q45 Condiments (spices, tea, coffee) or other miscellaneous
food
Q46 Food consumption score calculation (NOT A QUESTION FOR
RESPONDENT)
Multiple choice questions Please circle the appropriate response

Q47 Is there at least one baby (between 1=Yes, 2=No
6-23 months) in HH?
Q48 Approximately how many months old? 1=less than 6 months
2=Between 6 and 11 months
Q49 Is the baby still breastfeeding? 1=Yes, 2=No
Q50 In the past 4 weeks, did you have to worry about food for your household?
Question Response Options CODE
1 In the past four weeks, 0=No (skip to Q2)
did you worry that your 1=Yes
household would not have
enough food?
1a How often did this happen? 1=Rarely (once or twice in the past four
weeks)
2=Sometimes (three to ten times in the past
four weeks)
3=Often (more than ten times in the past
four weeks)
were you or any household 1=Yes
member not able to eat the
kinds of foods that you
preferred because of a lack
of resources?
weeks)
four weeks)
four weeks)
did you or any household 1=Yes
member have to eat a limited
variety of foods due to a lack
of resources?
weeks)
four weeks)
four weeks)
member have to eat some
foods that you really did not
want to eat because of a lack
of resources to obtain other
types of food?
weeks)
four weeks)
four weeks)
member have to eat a
smaller meal that you felt
you needed because there
was not enough food?
weeks)
four weeks)
four weeks)
member have to eat fewer
meals in a day because
weeks)
four weeks)
four weeks)
7 In the past four weeks, was 0=No (skip to Q8)
there ever no food to eat of 1=Yes
any kind in your household
because of a lack of
resources to get food?
weeks)
four weeks)
four weeks)
member go to sleep at night
hungry because there was
not enough food?
weeks)
four weeks)
four weeks)
9 In the past four weeks, 0=No
member go a whole day
and night without eating
anything because there was
not enough food?
weeks)
four weeks)
four weeks)
Q51. HFIAS calculation (NOT A QUESTION FOR RESPONDENT)
5. HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOODS SOURCES

Q52. List in order of importance the 4 main sources of HH income? (1=most important,
4=least important)
1 Agriculture 6 Casual labour in agriculture
2 Livestock rearing/selling 7 Other casual labour
3 Other trading/business 8 Civil servant /Other Employee
4 Fishing 9 Remittances from abroad
5 Artisan: mason, carpenter 10 Renting out land to others
11 Other (please specify) ______________________________________
Q53 What is the HH weekly income (in local currency)? ____________

Q54 What is the HH monthly income (in local currency)? ___________
Q55 What is the HH annual income (in local currency)? _____________
Q56. How is your current income compare to the previous month? (circle response)
1 Higher 2 Similar 3 Lower 4 Don’t know
Q57. In the past month what were the 4 greatest HH expenditures in order of importance?
(1=most, 4=least)
1 Food 6 Livestock
2 House equipment 7 Other productive assets: tools,
purchase machinery
3 Clothes 8 Health expenses
4 Fuel 9 Education expenses
5 Agricultural inputs 10 Social expenses (wedding, funerals)
11 Other (please specify) ____________________________________
Q58 What proportion of your total monthly income did food account for? Use the
proportional piling method ________________________
Q59. Has there been any change in HH expenditure in the last month? (circle response)
1 Higher 2 Similar 3 Lower 4 Don’t know
Q60 If the spending pattern was different from the previous month, explain why? _____
_____________________________________
Q61 Does the HH have 1 Yes 3 No 4 Don’t
any debt? know
Q62 How much debt Cash Wheat O t h e r
approximately? (kg) amount
Q63 If “other debt”, please specify its nature? __________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
6. CROP PORDUCTION
Q64 What area of land does the HH own? _______________________
Q65 What area of land does the HH cultivate (in last season)? ______
Q66 What area of rain-fed land does the HH cultivate? _____________
Q67 What area of land was not cultivated last season? ____________
Q68 If you left land uncultivated last season, what was the main reason? (please circle)
1 Lack of labour 6 Fallow land
2 Lack of seeds 7 Lack of fertilizer
3 Lack of rain 8 Water logged land
4 Lack of tools to till land etc 9 Other (please specify) ______
Crop Area Planted Type of Main Amount Were you If NO give

planted (ha) seeds source harvested able to get reason
last 1= of (kg) quantity 1=can’t
season Hybrid seeds of seeds afford
2= OPV needed? 2=not
3=N/A 1=Yes, 2=No available
3=N/A 3= unable
to retain
4= N/A
Q69 Maize
Q70 Millet
Q71 Wheat
Q72 Sorghum
Q73 Rice
Q74 Beans
Q75 Cowpeas
Q76 Groundnuts
Q77 Potatoes
Q78 Coffee
Q79 Cocoa
Q80 Cotton
Q81 How many fruit trees do you have access to? (circle answer)
0 None 1 1-5 2 5-10 3 10-20 4 20-50 5 50+
7. GARDENS
Q82 Does the household have a vegetable 1 Yes 2 No
garden? (circle answer)
Q83 If yes, who owns the 1 Individual 2 Community 3 Other
garden? (circle answer)
Q84 If yes, does the house have access to a 1 Yes 2 No
water source? (circle answer)
Q85 If yes to Q84, is it (circle 1 Perennial 2 Intermittent 3 Other
answer)
Q86 How far 1 <0.5km 2 0.5-1km 3 1-2km 4 >2km

is nearest
water
point?
(circle
answer)
GARDEN PRODUCTION
Type of crop 1=Yes 2=No Average Main source
Output in of seed /
last crop seedlings /
cuttings
Q87 Tomato (Kg)
Q88 Carrots (Kgs)
Q89 Cucumber(Kg)
Q90 Onion/Shallot (Kg)
Q91 Cow Peas (kg)
Q92 Groundnuts(Kg)
Q93 Okra (Kg)
Q94 Potato (Kg)
Q95 Sweet Potato(Kg)
Q96 Pumpkin/Squash
(Heads)
Q97 Rape (bundles)
Q98 Peas (Kg)
Q99 Beans (Kg)
Q100 Spinach (bundles)
Q101 Butternut (Kg)
Q102 Pawpaw (Heads)
Q103 Banana (Kg)
Q104 Cassava (Kg)
Q105 Avocado (Kg)
Q106 Orange/Lemon (Kg)
Q107 Other (specify)

Which of the following tools do you have? 1=Yes 2=No

Q108 Plough
Q109 Cultivator
Q110 Hoe
Q111 Rake
Q112 Wheelbarrow
Q113 Shovel
Q114 Pick / Mattock
Q115 Axe
Q116 Cart
8. LIVESTOCK
How much livestock does the HH own now (in numbers by type)?
Type Number Type Number
Q117 Cattle Q121 Poultry
Q118 Goats/Sheep Q122 Horse
Q119 Donkey Q123 Camel
Q120 Other (please specify) __________________________________
How much livestock did the HH own a year ago (in numbers by type)?
Type Number Type Number
Q124 Cattle Q128 Poultry
Q125 Goats/Sheep Q129 Horse
Q126 Donkey Q130 Camel
Q127 Other (please specify) ________________________________
Could the following details about the livestock now? Number

Q131 Number of animals used for ploughing or transportation
Q132 Number of female cows
Q133 Number of female goats
Q134 Number of female sheep
Could the following details about the livestock a year ago? Number
Q135 Number of animals used for ploughing or transportation
Q136 Number of female cows
Q137 Number of female goats
Q138 Number of female sheep
Q139. If the number of livestock decreased since last year, what were the 4 most
important reasons for this? (1=most important, 4=least important)
1 Animal selling for cash 5 Killed for meat - daily family
consumption
2 Death linked to pasture/fodder 6 Killed for celebration
shortage
3 Animal given away / gift 7 Death following disease
4 Death of old age 8 Other (please specify) _______
Q140 Does the HH own some pasture? (circle answer) 1 Yes 2 No

Q141 If yes, how much? __________________________________
Q142 In order of importance, what are the 4 main products you get from your livestock?
1 Milk/dairy products for own 5 5. Skin/hides for selling
consumption
2 Milk/dairy products for selling 6 6. Skin/hides for own
consumption
3 Meat for selling 7 Other (please specify)
___________________________
4 Meat for own consumption

Q143 In order of importance, what are the 4 main constraints you are facing in livestock
farming? (1=most important, 4=least important)
1 Disease 6 Lack of fodder
2 Low selling price 7 Lack of water
3 Low production 8 Lack of access to
veterinary services
4 Lack of pasture 9 Lack of safe livestock
house
5 Other (please specify)? ____________________________________
9. LIVELIHOOD COPING STRATEGIES
In the past fifteen days, to meet the basic needs of the family, did 1=Yes 0=No
your family have to?
Q144 Send at least one member abroad for job 1 0
Q145 Sell non-productive assets (jewellery, carpets, house 1 0
furniture)
Q146 Send son(s)work as casual labourer 1 0
Q147 Purchase less agricultural inputs 1 0
Q148 Beg 1 0
Q149 Get into debt, take out loan or mortgage 1 0
Q150 Send all family workers abroad for job 1 0
Q151 Sell productive assets (female livestock, grinder, sowing 1 0
machine, tools, piece of land)
Q152 Stop education/health expenditures 1 0
Q153 Sell harvest (fruits, wheat) early and at a loss 1 0
Q154 Reduce all expenses 1 0
Q155 In the past month, have you or members of the HH had to 1=Yes 0=No
borrow money?
Q156 If yes, what were the 3 most important expenses? (1=most important, 4=least
important)
1 Food purchases 5 Items for livestock
2 Health expenses 6 Does not know
3 Clothes/Hygiene items 7 Other (please specify)
________________________
4 Agricultural inputs

QUALITY CONTROL
Data entry_________________________________ Date___________
Annex 36: Steps for data monitor recruitment and Job description
1) Determine the number of data collectors required: how many data collectors are required, will
depend on number of people to be interviewed, the geographic coverage, the variety of language
groups or social groups to be covered that might require people with different backgrounds. The
following rules of thumb are useful to consider:
• A small number of collectors increases the time needed to complete all the interviews, while
a large number may complicate team management and weaken consistency of approach.
One interviewer can usually undertake 3 to 4 questionnaires a day depending on travel times
between surveyed villages;
• It is good to have one supervisor per 5 interviewers to quality check data collection;
• It is useful to have back-up collectors in case of illness or some other events.
2) Agree desired skills for data collectors: The following qualities should be sought in data collectors;
they must be:
• Able to read and write;
• Able to build rapport with respondents;
• Have a good sense of team work;
• Have some field experience, ideally in food security and livelihoods;
• Speak the local language/dialect;
• Available for the full duration of the survey period and to support with related activities;
• Reliable;
• Have some knowledge of the area;
• Physically fit.
3) Agree desired skills for supervisors: To supervise data collectors, as well as the above skills,
supervisors must also have:
• Good organisation skills to supervise data collectors;
• Able to audit completed questionnaires;
• Demonstrate knowledge of being able to quality-check data collection;
• Demonstrate knowledge of the ethical considerations in data collection (see section 3.1);
• Have some survey/interviewing experience in the project area;
• Have some supervisory experience;
Other options to consider for potential candidates include: university students, those from
agricultural schools (either local or international doing their graduate or post-graduate research),
community based workers and/or volunteers.
4) Develop job description for the data collectors: As with any other role, it is important that data
collectors have clear Job Descriptions against which their performance can be assessed. For a
sample JD, see below FSL Monitor Data Collector Job Description.
FSL Monitor Data Collector Job Description
JOB DESCRIPTION
Field Monitor
Work base: Department: FSL
Name: Date:
Title of post : Supervised by: Team leader

FIELD MONITOR Supervises: N/A
Assignment : Means :
Collect data on food security and livelihoods Transport, stationary
through household interviews
Diploma / Level of studies : Lower High School Leaving Certificate or equivalent
Required skills :
• Capacity to communicate with people
• Good team player
• Good human relationships
• Good knowledge of the survey area
• Knowledge of local languages/dialects
• Field experience, ideally in food security
Objective 1 : Collect information and data on food security and livelihoods in line with to
clearly defined methodologies
Activities :
• Participate actively in initial training sessions, pilot surveys and debriefing
• Carry out household surveys
• Clearly explain the purpose of the survey, the process to be followed and individual rights in
participating to beneficiaries
• Ensure coherence of collected information
• Report any problems and constraints
• Propose possible improvements
Objective 2 : Represent the Organization when liaising with its partners:
Activities :
• Explain the project’s activities and objectives to partners and the population
• Act as a link between the Organization and the beneficiaries
The Employee: The Immediate Supervisor: Visa Administor:
Objectives Indicators Indicator definition Sources of Means of Time of data Respo- Reporting Decision
/ variables information verify-cation collection nsibility making
and
frequency
Impact No. of beneficiary -Beneficiary -Mid-Term -At project FSL PM Monthly -FS Project
indicator 1: farmers who have farmers evaluation mid-term report to: Manager
At least 75% of doubled their food -Community -FS field team -Coordinator
Goal: the 4,000 production quantity steering -Final -At the end of -Coordinator -HQ advisors
Protection beneficiary - quantity of wheat committees external project -HQ
and farmers have produced evaluation -Local
promotion of doubled their - quantity of Authorities
rural food production chickpeas produced -Baseline -At beginning -National
livelihoods of by year 3 - quantity of survey of project Authorities
poor and vegetables produced -Beneficiaries
Annex 37: Monitoring plan example
vulnerable Impact - No. of women who -Beneficiary -Impact -Last month of

households in indicator 2: doing home- households evaluation project
Asterlay 20% increase in gardening by the end -Community
District, Day participation of of project steering -Post -Twice a year
Kundi women in - No. of beneficiary committees Harvest
Province, agricultural/ farmers stating that survey
Afghanistan productivity in women are more -Community
target district involved (compared steering
by year 3 to baseline) committee
meetings -
Source: ACF Afghanistan (2010) Household Survey Field Guide for FSL Staff
observation

206
With reference to above example, details of what should be included in each column include:
1. Objectives column – Should include the hierarchy of objective statements taken from the
project logframe (Goal, Results, Outputs and Activities).
2. Indicator column – Should include the indicators corresponding to each objective from the
project logframe. Indicators should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and
time-bound), and can be quantitative (numeric) or qualitative (descriptive observations). When
completing an M&E plan, indicators may need to be revised based on the field and resource
realities on whether they can be collected. It is important to check suggested changes with key
stakeholders (e.g. donors) before revisions are made, and that the logframe is also revised.
3. Indicator variable column – Should explain how the indicator will be calculated by including
the different variables needed to build up the indicator. Here the example shows that the
indicator needs to be broken down into its component variables, to clarify what is meant by
“food production” – in this instance it includes wheat, chickpeas and vegetables (where the
latter could be broken down further). It should also detail if the indicator is to be disaggregated
by sex, age, ethnicity, or some other variable.
4. Sources of information column – Should include the source from which data for the relevant
indicator variables will be derived, giving details of the source (title, author and date). If it is a
primary ACF evaluation or survey such as a PDM, give detail of that. If it is secondary source
undertaken by another organization, such as a WFP Assessment, give details of that.
5. Means of verification column – Should include details of the methodologies to be used to collect
the information for the indicator variables (e.g. sample survey, focus group discussion, market
survey). This column should also indicate whether data collection tools (e.g. questionnaires,
checklists) are already available or whether they need to be developed. The example has two
primary methods (quantitative surveys and observation), and tools (a baseline survey, a post-
harvest survey and three evaluations).
6. Time of data collection and frequency column – Should include details of when and how
often data about each specific indicator will be gathered (annually, quarterly, end of project,
etc), as well as key dates to schedule (e.g. start-up and end dates for collection or deadlines
for tool development). When planning for data collection timing, it is important to consider
factors that can affect data collection timing (e.g. seasonal variations that might affect ability to
collect data, such as the rainy season, school schedules, holidays and religious periods (e.g.,
Ramadan).
7. Person responsible for data collection, analysis and reporting column – Should include
details of who is responsible for the data collection, analysis and reporting. This may be one
person or multiple people (e.g. the M&E Officer, Project Manager or Coordinator). If it is multiple
people, this information is best kept in the table. If it is one person, for ease of use of the M&E
Plan, this can be taken out as a column and the details of the person responsible recorded
below the table. This column is also useful in assessing and planning for capacity building for
the M&E system.
8. Reporting column – Should include details of how the information will be prepared for use,
and in what form it will be presented to information users (e.g. type of report such as a monthly
Activity Progress Report (APR)). The primary use of the information and its intended audience
should be recorded. This column can also state ways that the findings will be formatted (e.g.
tables, charts and narrative reports) and disseminated (e.g. through briefings or community
meetings).
9. Decision process column – This differs from the reporting column in that is should detail
the audience of the information who may need to take decisions based on the information
received. Here, it may also be useful to detail the decision-making forum (e.g. debriefing from
an evaluation).
Annex 38: ACF Evaluation ToR Template
TERMS OF REFERENCE
For the External Evaluation of ACF’s
[Programme Name]
Programme Funded by
[NAME OF DONOR]
Contract Reference
[NUMBER]
[Date]
1. CONTRACTUAL DETAILS OF THE EVALUATION
1.1. Key Evaluation Dates

Expected Start Date: [date]
End Date: [date]
Submission of Draft Report [date]
Submission of Final Report [same as end date]
1.2. Language of the Evaluation

Language Requirements for the Evaluation: [language]
Language of the Report: [language]
1.3. Workplan & Timetable

Activities Working Days
Total
1.4. Budget for the Evaluation
[Currency of Contract]
Total Amount Available [amount]
Deadline for invoicing (Contract End): [date]
No. of Days Unit Price Sub-Total Paid By (tick as

(currency) (currency) appropriate)
ACF (HQ) ACF (Field)
Consultant’s Fees [number] [amount] [amount]
International Travel [amount] [amount]
Airport Transfers
Visas [amount]
Briefing/Debriefing [amount]
Costs
Accommodation [number] [amount] [amount]
Subsistence/Per [number] [amount] [amount]
Diems
Translator/Assistant [number] [amount] [amount]
Local Vehicle [number] [amount] [amount]
Transport Driver [number] [amount] [amount]
Report Translation [amount]
Additional Costs [amount]
ACF-UK Admin 700
Costs
Total
Comments
The consultant is responsible for personal insurance during the evaluation. The consultant will also
provide any necessary materials (including laptops) required for the evaluation.
2. DETAILS OF THE PROGRAMME
Name of the Programme: [name]

Location: [region, country]
Starting Date: [date]
End Date: [date]
2.1. Map of Programme Area
2.2. Programme Overview
2.3. General Objective
2.4. Specific Objectives/Results
2.5. Programme Activities
3. AIM OF THE EVALUATION
3.1. Target User(s) of the Evaluation

ACF [list titles of direct users]
Implementing HQ [list titles of direct users]
Field Level [list titles of direct users]
Other [list titles of direct users]
3.2. Objective(s) of the Evaluation
3.3. Scope of the Evaluation
[insert questions from the field team/field office/implementing HQ]
3.4. Evaluation Criteria
ACF subscribes to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria for evaluation: Impact,
Sustainability, Coherence, Coverage, Relevance / Appropriateness, Effectiveness and Efficiency.
ACF also promotes systematic analysis of the monitoring system and cross cutting issues (gender,
HIV/AIDS etc). All external evaluations are expected to use DAC criteria in data analysis and
reporting. In particular, the evaluation must complete the following table and include it as part of
the final report.
The evaluator will be expected to use the following table to rank the performance of the overall
intervention using the DAC criteria. The table should be included as an Annex to the report.
Criteria Rating (1 low, 5 Rationale

high)
1 2 3 4 5
Impact
Sustainability
Coherence
Coverage
Relevance/
Appropriateness
Effectiveness
Efficiency
3.5. Best Practices
The evaluation is expected to provide one (1) key example of Best Practice from the project/
programme. This example should relate to the technical area of intervention, either in terms of
processes or systems, and should be potentially applicable to other contexts where ACF operates.
This example of Best Practice should be presented as an Annex to the report.
3.6. Evaluation Outputs
The result of this evaluation should be presented in a written report and through several oral
presentations:
• One on the mission (to Head of Mission and relevant technical staff)
• One at HQ (in person or via teleconference).
3.7. Methodology
3.7.1. Briefing
Prior to the evaluation taking place, the evaluator is expected to attend a briefing at HQ level, and at
field level with the Head of Mission and/or the relevant technical focal point. Briefings by telephone
must be agreed in advance.
3.7.2. Field activities
Consultants are expected to collect an appropriate range of data. This includes (but not limited to):
• Direct information: Interviews with beneficiaries - Visit to project sites and to the facilities
provided to the beneficiaries
• Indirect information: Interviews with local representatives; interviews with project staff expatriate
and national staff; meeting with local authorities, groups of beneficiaries, humanitarian
agencies, donor representatives and other stakeholders. For indirect data collection, standard
and participatory evaluation methods are expected to be used (HH interviews and FGDs with
beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, key informants – health workers, teachers and leaders)
• Secondary information analysis: including analysis of project monitoring data or of any other
relevant statistical data.
3.7.3. Report
The report shall follow the following format.
• Cover Page
• Table of Contents
• Executive Summary: must be a standalone summary, describing the programme, main findings
of the evaluation, and conclusions and recommendations. This will be no more than 2 pages in
length.
• Main Body: The main body of the report shall elaborate the points listed in the Executive Summary.
It will include references to the methodology used for the evaluation and the context of the
action. In particular, for each key conclusion there should be a corresponding recommendation.
Recommendations should be as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible; that is, they
should take careful account of the circumstances currently prevailing in the context of the
action, and of the resources available to implement it both locally and in the commissioning HQ.
Annexes: Listed and correctly numbered. Format for the main body of the report is:
oo Background Information
oo Methodology
oo Findings & Discussions
oo Conclusions Recommendations
oo Annex I (Best Practice)
oo Annex II (DAC-based Rating Table)
The report should be submitted in the language specified in the ToR. The report should not be longer
than 30 pages excluding annexes. The draft report should be submitted no later than 10 calendar
days after departure from the field. The final report will be submitted no later than the end date of the
consultancy contract. Annexes to the report will be accepted in the working language of the country
and programme subject to the evaluation.
3.7.4. Debriefing & Learning Workshop
The evaluator should facilitate a learning workshop:
• To present the draft report and the findings of the evaluation to the Mission and other stakeholders.
• To gather feedback on the findings and build consensus on recommendations.
• To develop action-oriented workshop statements on lessons learned and proposed improvements
for the future.
3.7.5. Debriefing with ACF HQ
The evaluator should provide a debriefing with the relevant ACF HQ on her/his draft report, and on
the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation. Relevant comments should
be incorporated in the final report.
4. PROFILE OF THE EVALUATOR
• Knowledge in [programme area and specific programme activities]

• Significant field experience in the evaluation of humanitarian/development projects
• Relevant degree/equivalent experience related to the evaluation to be undertaken
• Significant experience in coordination, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
programmes
• Good communications skills and experience of workshop facilitation
• Ability to write clear and useful reports (may be required to produce examples of previous work)
• Fluent in [language]
• Understanding of donor requirements
• Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work to tight deadlines
• Independence from the parties involved
5. RIGHTS
The ownership of the draft and final documentation belong to the agency and the funding donor
exclusively. The document, or publication related to it, will not be shared with anybody except ACF
before the delivery by ACF of the final document to the donor.
ACF is to be the main addressee of the evaluation and its results might impact on both operational
and technical strategies. This being said, ACF is likely to share the results of the evaluation with
the following groups:
• Donor(s)
• Governmental partners
• Various co-ordination bodies
Intellectual Property Rights

All documentation related to the Assignment (whether or not in the course of the evaluator’s duties)
shall remain the sole and exclusive property of the Charity
Annex 39: Advantages and Disadvantages of Internal vs. External
Evaluations
Internal Evaluators External evaluators

+ Know the organisation + Objective
+ Understand organisational behaviour and + No organisational bias
attitudes + Fresh perspectives
+ Are known to staff + Broader experience
+ Are less threatening + More easily hired for longer periods of time
+ Often a greater chance of adopting + Can serve as an outside expert
recommendations + Not part of the power structure
+ Are less expensive + Can bring in additional resources
+ Build internal evaluation capability + Trained in evaluation
+ Contribute to programme capacity + Experienced in other evaluations
+ Bring fresh perspectives from similar
- Objectivity may be questioned programmes in other organisations
- Structure may constrain participation + Regarded as an “expert”
- Personal gain may be questioned
- Accept the assumptions of the organisation - May not know the organisation
- Full participation may be constrained by usual - May not know of constraints affecting
workload recommendations
- May not be trained in evaluation methods - May be perceived as an adversary
- May lead to the evaluation not having - Expensive
acceptable outside credibility - Contract negotiations may take time
- May have difficulty avoiding bias - Follow up on recommendations is not always
- May lack special technical expertise there
- Unfamiliar with environment
Annex 40: Codes and Standards Overview

What codes and standards is ACF signatory to requiring adherence monitoring?
M&E should be conducted in line with codes and standards appropriate and relevant to ACF and the
project being undertaken, and adherence to them monitored. These can include:
• The ACF Charter requires adherence to the principles of: Independence, Neutrality, Non-
Discrimination, Free and Direct Access to Victims, Professionalism and Transparency.
• The Sphere Handbook eight core ‘process and people’ standards that are relevant to
each of the technical sectors, including: i) Participation, ii) Initial assessment, iii) Response, iv)
Targeting, v) Monitoring, vi) Evaluation, vii) Aid worker competencies and responsibilities and
viii) Supervision, management and support of personnel in line with People in Aid.
• The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and
NGOs in Disaster Relief requires adherence to the principles of: i) Humanitarian imperative, ii)
Basis of need, iii) No proselytising, iv) Not foreign agents, v) Respect culture, vi) Build on local
capacities, vii) Involve beneficiaries, viii) Reduce vulnerability, ix) Accountable both ways, x)
Respect victims as human beings.
• Professional standards in M&E including ACF’s Evaluation Policy and any sector or donor
standards being adhered under a particular project; these might for example include OECD
DAC Principles, the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards, although this is not
an exhaustive list.
What other codes exist but to which ACF is a non-signatory?
A project might also seek to adhere to other codes and standards to which ACF is not a signatory,
but it is felt that adherence to them may encourage best practices. These could include:
• The Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP). While ACF is not a HAP member, the HAP
benchmarks can nevertheless be used to shape interventions. These include: i) Humanity, ii)
Impartiality, iii) Neutrality, iv) Independence, v) Participation and informed consent, vi) Duty of
care, vii) Witness, viii) Offer redress, ix) Transparency, x) Complementarity.
• People in Aid (PIA). While ACF is not a PIA-approved member, the PIA code can nevertheless
be used to shape projects in line with the following PIA principles: i) Human resources strategy,
ii) Staff policies and practices, iii) Managing people, iv) Consultation and communication, v)
Recruitment and selection, vi) Learning, training and development, vii) Health, safety and
security.
• Group URD’s Quality Compass encourages the following principles of best practices for
projects: the project responds to a demonstrated need; the project achieves its objectives; the
project removes or reduces the risk of negative impacts; the project aims for positive impacts
beyond implementation; the project is consistent with the agency’s mandate and principles; the
project respects the population; the project is flexible; the project is integrated in its institutional
context in an optimal manner; the agency has the necessary resources and expertise; the
agency has the appropriate management capacity; the agency makes optimal use of resources;
the agency uses lessons drawn from experience.
Annex 41: Inception Report Template

Title
Insert Date
Background
Please provide detail on the background to the project.
Purpose of this report

Please insert details on the purpose of this report.
Overall objectives of the project

Please include details on the overall objectives of the project.
Specific objectives of the project

Please include details on the specific objectives of the project.
1. Specific Objective 1
Please include details.
2. Specific Objective 1
Please include details.
Expected outputs
Please include details on the expected outputs of the project:
1. …
2. …
Methodology
Please provide a step-by-step narrative overview of the methodology to be followed (e.g. desk
review etc):
1. Stage 1: …
2. Stage 2: …
3. Stage 3: …
4. Stage 4: ...
Output/report structure
Please provide an overview of how the final report for the project will be structured.
Project constraints
Please detail project constraints identified and how they will be addressed.
1. …
2. …
Stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities

Please detail who are the key stakeholders that will be involved and their relative responsibilities.
Annex 1: Interview Questions

Please detail below a summary of interview questions that will be used.
1. …
Annex 2: Reference Material /Literature Review
Please detail below a summary of the reference material known to date that will be used for the
project.
Annex 3: Proposed Activity Plan and Timeline
Annex 42: Interview Protocol Card
The following is an example of an interview protocol card that can be used when collecting qualitative
or quantitative data from individuals or households.
Such a card should be carried at all times by interviewers/data collectors to be shown to interviewees.
Your Rights as an Interviewee

• You have the right not to be interviewed or to terminate the interview at any time.
• You have the right not to answer any question you do not wish to.
• Nothing you say will be attributed to you directly or indirectly without your permission.
• The notes on this interview will not be shared outside the data collection team.

Action, ALNAP
You may want to include other optional information such as:
• If you provide an email address, we will send you a draft of the output for your comments
• Etc.
Annex 43: Establishing a Community-Based Monitoring System

What is a community based monitoring system?
It is a monitoring mechanism in which there is a high level of participation from the community in
driving its objectives, and how data is collected and utilized.
How to establish a community-based monitoring & evaluation system

Project staff should carefully identify key stakeholders in the community ensuring there is cross-
representational presence by women, men, the disabled, the elderly, and youths that may have
different expectations of a project.
A series of meetings should then be facilitated with community stakeholders, the objectives of which
are to:
• Give an overview of ACF’s organisational mission and values.

• Undertake a problem analysis (e.g. through a problem tree, transect walk, mapping).
• Clarify the project objectives, strategies, timeframe and partners.
• Explain why the project is introducing community-based monitoring and the subsequent
responsibilities of the community.
• Discuss with the participants at the meeting what they hope the project will bring in the short,
medium and long term.
• Discuss with the participants at the meeting how they will know if things are going well – what
will be the signs of success?
• Discuss with the participants how they can best keep a track of the changes.
• Discuss with the participants on who will be responsible for tracking changes.
• Discuss with the participants how they would like to use review and feedback mechanisms
providing a forum to discuss constraints and progress with the project team to ensure the
community-based monitoring is firmly embedded in the project monitoring and planning cycles.
Annex 44: Step-by-step Checklist for M&E Activities
Checklist for step-by-step approach to M&E
Timing: Activities:
Step 1: Agree the purpose and principles of the project’s M&E System
During project design and 1.1 Agree purpose of the project’s M&E system
proposal writing stage; 1.2 Confirm stakeholder information requirements
before defining monitoring 1.3 Agree the extent of stakeholder participation
plans 1.4 Determine M&E milestones (e.g. evaluations)
Step 2: Agree and design core documents to set up M&E system
During project design and 2.1 Select project indicators and how to assess them
proposal writing stage 2.2 Create M&E Plan
2.3 Agree resources for the M&E plan
Once funding is agreed 3.1 Finalize M&E plan agreeing cross-cutting variables
but before project 3.2 Assess capacity of staff in M&E and determine the extent of
implementation begins external support required
3.3 Agree budget for M&E
3.4 Train project staff on monitoring
3.5 Set up stakeholder feedback mechanism
Step 4: Agree field monitoring data collection and management process
Before implementation 4.1 Agree relevant data collection methods/tools
begins; this can be 4.2 Determine beneficiary counting
refined during project 4.3 Agree sampling requirements
implementation, before each 4.4 Interview guide and questionnaire creation
round of monitoring 4.5 Recruitment and training of field monitors
4.6 Manage the stakeholder feedback mechanism
4.7 Undertake on-site monitoring
4.8 Triangulate data collection sources and methods
4.9 Undertake data entry and management process
Step 5: Agree monitoring data analysis process

Before implementation 5.1 Agree data analysis plan
begins; can be refined during 5.2 Prepare the data for analysis
implementation 5.3 Assess key findings and trends
5.4 Identify challenges and solutions
5.5 Agree recommendations and associated actions
Step 6: Agree process for monitoring data utilization and reporting
Agree general guidance at 6.1 Agree reporting needs
project planning phase and 6.2 Agree reporting frequency
finalise details when project 6.3 Confirm reporting formats
implementation begins 6.4 Agree reporting responsibilities
6.5 Plan for information utilization
6.6 Facilitate decision making
6.7 Facilitate learning
During project 7.1 Regularly review and update the M&E system
implementation 7.2 Review ability to collect, enter, analyze and utilize data
7.3 Review decision-making process
7.4 Review resources for M&E
Step 8: Agree the process of evaluation management
During implementation and 8.1 Determine the purpose of the evaluation
evaluation 8.2 Planning evaluation Terms of Reference and commissioning
evaluation
8.3 Agree evaluation methodology
8.4 Agree evaluation preparation and research undertaking
8.5 Plan country/field visits
8.6 Agree evaluation reporting
8.7 Agree evaluation findings dissemination plan
August 2011
Editing ACF International
©ACF International. All rights reserved
ACF INTERNATIONAL
ACF -Canada ACF-United Kingdom

7105 rue St-Hubert First Floor, Rear Premises
Bureau 105 161-163 Greenwich High Road
Montréal, QC H2S 2N1 London SE10 8JA
www.actioncontrelafaim.ca www.actionagainsthunger.org.uk
Tel: +1 514.279.4876 Tel: +44 20.8293.6190
ACF-France ACF-United States

4, rue Nièpce 247 West 37th Street
75662 Paris Cedex 14 10th Floor
www.actioncontrelafaim.org New York, NY 10018
Tel: +33 01.43.35.88.88 www.actionagainsthunger.org
Tel: +1 212.967.7800
ACF-Spain
C/Caracas, 6,1
28010 Madrid
www.actioncontraelhambre.org
Tel: +34.91.391.53.00

Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines A Practical Guide For Field Workers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines A Practical Guide For Field Workers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines A Practical Guide For Field Workers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACF INTERNATIONAL

Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and

A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR FIELD WORKERS

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 1

2 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 3

Monitoring & Evaluation

Food Security Food Income

4 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 5

• Growing internal and external accountability requirements on programme performance;

2. Introduce a common harmonized approach to and understanding of the purpose of M&E

4. Be accountable to ACF stakeholders (beneficiaries, donors, partners etc.), through more

6 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

4. Resilience-building and preparedness contexts - Greater emphasis should be given to impact

Guidelines Target Audience

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 7

Definition of Projects and Programmes

A programme is therefore broader in scope and contains a coordinated set of projects.

A country strategy is implemented through programmes supported by projects which

8 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

Chapter 1. Introduction to Monitoring and Evaluation

Chapter 2. Step-by-step approach to M&E in project cycle

Chapter 3 Cross-cutting M&E issues

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 9

10 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

chapter 1 - Introduction to Monitoring and Evaluation 18

chapter 2 - Step-by-step approach to M&E 40

chapter 3 - Cross-Cutting M&E Issues 96

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 11

12 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 13

14 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 15

16 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 17

1 © ACF-Kenya, Paula Tenaglia

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 18

1.1 Defining Monitoring and its Purpose

A good monitoring system should be:

• Simple, relevant to and easily comprehensible against plans;

1.1.2 Purpose and importance of monitoring

4. Provide data for evaluations.

19 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

1.1.3 Importance of early planning for monitoring

1.1.4 Difference between monitoring and surveillance

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 20

1.1.5 Types of Monitoring

21 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines

1.1.7 Methodologies for Monitoring

• Individual Interviews (see Annex 5)

• Possible to collect (and not too time consuming or costly),

Box 1.2: Differentiating between qualitative and quantitative information

ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines 22

1.1.9 Monitoring Questions

Box 1.3: Key questions monitoring should answer

1.2 Defining Evaluation and its Purpose

1.2.1 Defining evaluation

23 ACF Food Security and Livelihood Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines