Building Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning systems based on mutual accountability and trust

In this blog I write about how a better understanding of ones power, mutual trust in partnerships linked to organizational decision making supports higher levels of impact. I want to share with you the importance of connecting people for change in a constant changing world and that we need to keep our focus on learning.

Impact as a starting point

When we explore concepts as impact and scaling often an unsettled feeling creeps up on me. Who are we as Dutch-based organizations deciding on frameworks and best-approaches and for the benefit of whom? In a data-driven world it has become more easily to measure and store results, creating more demands for evidence of impact and proof of effectiveness, increasing the calls for accountability in the public and social sectors. I would say that it is madness if we want to know and measure everything! Our focus should be to build a chain of trust where we understand well how to use our various powers in achieving common objectives. Our priorities in MEL processes should be that it is learning-driven and enable evaluations to understand we're heading in the right direction; data is collected as cost-effectively as possible with clear benefits for communities; and if decided to work with a Theory of Change it needs to remain flexible to plan for unpredictability such as issues around security or safety situations.

For me personally MEL is much more than a bunch of Excel sheets and is never boring! MEL is an important tool to facilitate our understanding of the efficiency, sustainability, gender, and environmental outcomes of projects. It also helps to understand contribution to improving environmental health and strengthening civil society. However, creating inclusive MEL systems can be complicated, especially if we truly want to be able to understand the long-term changes of our interventions. We have to start by challenging the way we frame our ‘successes’ and ideas around ‘impact’. The question then is: Who decides on what impact is? What is meaningful data? What needs to be measured? When is it enough? And who will benefit from it? Disclaimer: I won’t answer all these questions in this blog!

In 2023 Both ENDS partnered with 477 organizations in 40 countries and reported to be involved in 72 policy influencing processes and achieved 10 policy changes that support human rights and respect planetary boundaries. All these numbers only show a fraction of the incredible amount of work Both ENDS and all the partner organizations do. Even though these numbers are quite impressive, Both ENDS understands that impact isn’t only in numbers but especially in the quality of their processes. Using for example feedback cycles, case study and story-based approaches to put focus on learning and to complement understanding of outcomes beyond numbers.

In addition, not all sort of interventions are easy to measure. As building networks and movements might ultimately lead to more impact, it won’t necessarily result in more visibility. Note that especially in lobby and advocacy work it is often difficult to judge specific attribution of one organization to a specific (policy) change. That doesn’t mean the work is ineffective. At Both ENDS it’s realized change and impact can only happen when we commit to meaningful connections. Thus, if we want to change the world for the better, we need to stop pretending we work in silos, make better use of our complementary knowledge and powers, and start connecting people for change. This stresses the importance of focusing on reaching goals through collective efforts and letting go of having a fixed idea on how impact should be measured.

Tip 1. Focus on inclusivity:

MEL is so much more then only a documented framework or nicely designed Theory of Change. Impact implies causality, to understand our project and program impact we’ll need to be honest about our underlying assumptions. If created without a clear purpose and without an inclusive process a MEL system might just result in creating new bureaucratic burdens. To prevent this, we need to make efforts to have open conversations, honest feedback loops and evaluation processes that support adaptive management, learning and decision-making processes.

Tip 2 Focus on long-term commitments:

We need to stay reflective on how we collaborate, which language we use and assure we collaborate in ways that strengthen our partners and networks in their respective cultural and political landscapes. This also means we have to remain flexible and adapt our ways of working by moving away from short-term project cycles towards longer-term program commitments. Long-term commitment doesn’t always have to be a financial commitment, it means we can go beyond project funding and is a starting point for building trust-based and long-term partnerships.

Power and trust

MEL systems relate to the complete chain of collaborations, which means that challenges in MEL often revolve around trust. Therefore, we can find evidence of impact in the strength of our connections. Both ENDS supports partners and movements that transform power relations so that people everywhere can demand and defend their rights, as well as participate equally and share in the benefits of political and economic processes. However, in MEL especially for goals- and target setting many organizations increasingly have to conform to donor demands which could push organizations to become more reactive instead of proactive. From the Examination of Power process, I learned that to be effective: it is important to remain reflective of ones own power (both from a personal as from an institutional perspective) in collaborations. While the assumption is that organizations can still set targets, plan, monitor and evaluate in a diverse, creative and equal way with their partner organizations, it is important to remain reflective since collaborations are also dependent and influenced by donor flexibility and trust.

The process also proved that examining ones power isn’t always easy as notions of power, equity and trust mean different things to different people. For MEL systems to be appropriately internalized it is important to strive and improve for equity and trust within our own organizations and partnerships. How? By embracing feedback in our organizational cultures and being able to acknowledge one's own mistakes and biases. In addition, our MEL processes need to accommodate for safe spaces to valuing partners’ knowledge, allowing autonomy and decision making. It also means that there needs to be flexibility, open or regular communication and an ability as people and organizations to learn and unlearn.

Tip 3. Change decision-making processes:

We have to make sure that in our MEL processes there is clear communication about how decisions are made and who is responsible for them, that there’s involvement of diverse voices, and spaces to address power dynamics or systemic inequalities. This will foster trust and mutual respect. A better understanding and changing where and how (strategic and all kinds of funding) decisions are made can support the transforming of our organizations and our impact.

Tip 4. Lower the focus on accountability and increase a focus on learning:

As international Dutch-based organizations we should lower bureaucratic processes and build organizational structures with due diligence and procurement policies that can support flexibility in global collaborations (also beyond funding). This means one needs to be willing to immerse in open and regular communication and mutual feedback throughout the process.

Tip 5. Change direction when we need to:

We have to understand that change can be unpredictable and isn’t linear, meaning that a certain intervention doesn’t necessarily result in an expected outcome, as outcomes are often the result of many interventions by several actors. It is therefore important to test assumptions and adapt approaches when needed.

Trust-based MEL will change the system

To come back to my initial question, are we doing enough? No, I would say. Because we need to work on trust. I believe that if we want to continue to transform unjust systems in the world and context of today it is deemed necessary for international nature- and development organizations to transform ourselves. We need to honestly reflect and address unequal power distribution in our systems and practices. My advice would be to work from higher levels of trust as I can assure higher levels of impact. If MEL is used effectively, it could potentially strengthen relationships and create meaningful change. This means it should shift away from an accountability-driven focus and become learning-driven and trust-based. When many more people and organizations can adapt their MEL approaches, I believe there’s great opportunities to change power dynamics and progress towards a more sustainable and connected world.

Nalini Mahesh was PMEL & Quality officer at Both ENDS until July 2024 and recently started working as Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Coordinator at Wetlands International.

This article appeared online on 31 October at Vice Versa magazine.