{"id":67910,"date":"2025-11-12T11:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-11-12T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/idronline.org\/?post_type=article&p=67910"},"modified":"2026-01-15T07:43:28","modified_gmt":"2026-01-15T02:13:28","slug":"its-time-to-rethink-mel","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/idronline.org\/kn-in\/article\/monitoring-evaluation\/its-time-to-rethink-mel\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s time to rethink MEL"},"content":{"rendered":"

Indian civil society organisations (CSOs) are reaching more people than ever before. This growth brings with it high expectations for improved impact, response time, and decision-making, all under strict timelines that leave little room to pause and reflect. Monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL), designed to enable this reflection for CSOs, now serves mainly as a reporting tool.<\/p>

Some CSOs integrate MEL into their core strategy, while others use it sporadically, driven by donor demands, resources, and the lack of common frameworks. This creates a landscape of strong intent but uneven capacity and fragmented practice.<\/p>

A recent report<\/a> by Sambodhi<\/a> and Dasra<\/a> examines this disconnect, and reimagines MEL as a system that goes beyond performance tracking to foster learning, accountability, and agency across India’s civil society.<\/p>

\"What<\/a><\/div>

The report draws on quantitative survey data from 175 CSOs associated with Dasra’s Rebuild India Fund<\/a>. This data is complemented by in-depth interviews with 15 CSOs, chosen to reflect diverse organisational types, geographies, years of operation, leadership profiles, thematic focus areas, and budget sizes. Donors closely engaged with the ecosystem also participated in the interviews.<\/p>

Based on these insights, the report identifies gaps in the MEL ecosystem and proposes a forward-looking strategy for a more robust MEL practice across the sector.<\/p>

The gaps that persist<\/h3>

1. MEL as a strictly donor tool<\/h3>

MEL systems exist, but remain underutilised across the sector. Of every 100 data points collected by CSOs, 73 are used for donor reporting. Only 18 percent of data supports internal decision-making and learning, while even less informs communication or community engagement.<\/p>

Therefore, although data points are being collected, they rarely turn into insight. Many CSOs rely on leadership or external consultants for impact reporting, since frontline staff often lack the time or expertise to engage with the data.<\/p>

Funders share these concerns and acknowledge that current due diligence and reporting systems focus on outcomes but seldom evaluate whether organisations can deliver on MEL. There is little emphasis on foundational factors such as clarity of purpose, team stability, or adaptive leadership.<\/p>

\"donate<\/a><\/div>

Donor-driven funding often excludes the very communities that contribute to the data from accessing it. While 81.8 percent of CSOs reported that they share findings with the communities they serve, practices vary widely. These efforts focus mainly on monitoring or co-designing through staff-led check-ins. Participatory MEL, where communities co-create, assess, and interpret impact, remains uncommon.<\/p>

2. Chronic underfunding and staffing gaps<\/h3>

Robust MEL systems require resources, but funding shortages limit organisations’ aspirations. Investments in MEL-related concerns—including skilled staff, evaluation expertise, technology, and operational support—are often missing from programme budgets, especially at grassroots-led CSOs.<\/p>

Survey data confirms this, with nearly six in 10 organisations allocating less than 5 percent of programme budgets to MEL. Most CSOs operate with lean teams where MEL responsibilities are shared informally by the programme staff. The data reflects this, with 42.5 percent of organisations relying on programme teams for evaluations and only 21.8 percent having internal MEL teams.<\/p>

\"A<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/a>
Participatory MEL, where communities co-create, assess, and interpret impact, remains uncommon. | Picture courtesy: Wikimedia Commons<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>

3. Digital tools being widespread but lacking depth of use<\/h3>

Technology adoption in MEL varies in depth. Only one in 10 organisations reported relying solely on manual processes. Most (68 percent) use tools such as Excel and Google Forms instead of paper-based methods. Approximately 10.3 percent of organisations also experiment with AI tools such as ChatGPT.<\/p>

However, when looking at what technology is deployed for, the report finds that CSOs largely limit their use of digital tools to data entry. Therefore, while many CSOs demonstrate an openness to using technology, its potential for analysis, learning, and decision-making remains largely untapped.<\/p>

Digital MEL systems run the risk of exclusion. Frontline staff and communities with limited access to language, literacy, or technology are particularly vulnerable to such exclusions. Organisations counter this challenge by pairing digital tools with analogue formats for wider participation. Some develop multilingual materials and formats that reflect community voices. These efforts require time, resources, and commitment.<\/p>

How can MEL be strengthened?<\/h3>

The report proposes five strategic shifts to transform MEL into a driver of impact:<\/p>

1. Design for learning, not just measurement<\/h3>

Fixed, one-size-fits-all metrics cannot capture shifting ground realities. MEL systems must enable real-time feedback, continuous learning, and adaptive decision-making. When built for learning rather than just reporting, MEL supports reflection, relevance, and lasting impact.<\/p>

2. Invest in capacity<\/h3>

MEL should be part of everyday work and not seen as a separate or external task. This requires ongoing investment in:<\/p>