This document discusses performance monitoring and evaluation. It outlines 12 components of a functional M&E system including structure and organization, human capacity, partnerships, plans, advocacy, routine monitoring, periodic surveys, databases, supervision, evaluation, and using information. Monitoring tracks performance against targets while evaluation assesses completed projects and answers specific questions. Impact evaluations assess program effectiveness and attribution by comparing outcomes to a counterfactual scenario.

1. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
Rahul Bhargava
27 May 2012
Contents
Context 1
Components for a functional M&E system 2
Methodology 4
Context
Most progressive governments have institutionalized results-based
management leading to performance-enhancement and effective
delivery of progress and change. The objective of results based
management is to “provide a coherent framework for strategic plan-
ning and management based on learning and accountability in a
decentralised environment.”1 Introducing a results-based approach 1
Note on Results Based Management,
aims to improve management effectiveness and accountability by Operations Evaluation Department,
World Bank, 1997
“defining realistic expected results, monitoring progress toward the
achievement of expected results, integrating lessons learned into
management decisions and reporting on performance.”2 2
“Results-based Management in
Results Based Management at UNDP, for example, is based on Canadian International Development
Agency”, CIDA, January 1999
• the definition of strategic goals which provide a focus for action;
• the specification of expected results which contribute to these
goals and align programs, processes and resources behind them;
• on-going monitoring and assessment of performance, integrating
lessons learnt into future planning;
• improved accountability, based on continuous feedback to improve
performance
Development programs and policies are designed to achieve
outcomes, for example, to raise incomes or improve agricultural
productivity. Impact evaluations are a part of developing evidence-
based policy. Outlining the Millennium Development Goals, Results
Framework Documents and performance-pay incentives, make imple-
menters focus on results that are set to be tracked internationally and
nationally. These results are to be used to increase accountability, for
budgeting and informing policy.
Monitoring and Evaluation is used to improve the quality, effi-
ciency and effectiveness of interventions.

2. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Center of Excellence
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is key for the effective imple-
mentation of results-based management. Within a results-oriented
environment, the emphasis of M&E is on:
• active application of monitoring and evaluation information to
the continuous improvement of strategies, programs and other
activities;
• monitoring of substantive development results instead of just
inputs and implementation processes;
• monitoring and evaluation of results as they emerge instead of as
an ex-post activity;
• conducting monitoring and evaluation as joint exercises with
Government departments
Components for a functional M&E system
The World Bank identified twelve components of a working monitor-
ing and evaluation system following international peer review. This
approach was formally adopted by UNAIDS and partners, for their
M&E capacity building efforts in 2007, to support the measurement
and management of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
The twelve components of a functional M&E system are3 3
Goergens, Marelize and Kusek,
Jody Zall. Making Monitoring and
Evaluation Systems Work: A Capacity
Development Tool Kit. World Bank
Publications. 2010.
2

3. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Center of Excellence
1. Structure and
organisational
alignment for
M&E systems
6. Advocacy
2. Human
communication
capacity for
and culture for
M&E systems
M&E systems
7. Routine 8. Periodic
monitoring surveys
12. Using
information to
improve results 9. Databases
11. Evaluation useful to
and research M&E
systems
10. Supportive
5. Costed supervision and
data auditing 3. M&E
M&E work
partnerships
plans
4. M&E
plans
Components relating to “people, partnerships and planning”
1. Structure and organizational alignment for M&E systems
2. Human capacity for M&E systems
3. M&E partnerships
4. M&E plans
5. Costed M&E work plans
6. Advocacy, communication, and culture for M&E systems
Components relating to “collecting, capturing and verifying data”
3

4. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Center of Excellence
7. Routine monitoring
8. Periodic surveys
9. Databases useful to M&E systems
10. Supportive supervision and data auditing
11. Evaluation and research
Final component about “using data for decision-making”
12. Using information to improve results
As suggested by the authors, these Components may be used as an
organizing framework for planning a M&E system’s staff, resources,
support and funding requirements. It may be used as a reference for
conducting assessments of a national M&E system, akin to the RFD
framework, such that individual components may be assessed and
to divide responsibilities at a country level, as a framework within
which all partners can work together.
Methodology
Monitoring is a continuous process that is used to inform program
implementation and day-to-day management. It usually tracks per-
formance against expected results, facilitates comparisons across
programs and allows for the reviewing of trends over time. Inputs,
activities, outputs and occasionally outcomes, such as toward na-
tional and international development goals, are tracked.
Evaluations, meanwhile, are periodic objective assessments of com-
pleted projects, programs or policy. They set out to answer specific
questions about design, implementation and results or outcomes. To
justify them, programs should be,
Innovative To test a novel approach;
Replicable To decide on whether to scale up in a different setting,
geography or context;
Strategically relevant To review flagship initiatives;
Untested Globally or in context;
Influence policy
Cost-effectiveness of programs can be determined following im-
pact evaluations. Specifically, questions regarding the cost-benefit
balance of a given program and comparisons of the cost-effectiveness
4

5. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Center of Excellence
of implementation alternatives can be answered based on the evi-
dence.
Impact evaluations should be approached pragmatically, that
is, the methods should fit the operational context, not vice versa.
This is achieved at the outset of programs, by designing prospective
impact evaluations into the project’s implementation. Evaluation
designs that fit the political and operational context are as important
as the method itself. Where policy makers and civil society demand
results and accountability from public programs, impact evaluations
provide credible evidence on performance and on whether a program
achieved its desired outcome.4 4
Gertler, Paul (2010): Impact Evaluation
in Practice. Herndon, VA, USA: World
There are caveats, however. Often there is greater emphasis on
Bank Publications.
controlling inputs, say, funds utilized or literature distributed, than
on assessing whether a program has achieved a goal.
Attribution is the hallmark of impact evaluations. They assess the
improvements in the well-being of persons that can be attributed
to specific projects, programs or policy. It follows, that executed
correctly, impact evaluations should be carried out within a logi-
cal framework that set out causal pathways by which a program
produces outputs and influences outcomes.5 5
Ibid.
For example, the Government of Mexico recognized the need
to monitor and evaluate the roll out of the innovative conditional
cash transfer program called “Progresa” in the 1990s. Its objective
was to provide short-term support to create incentives to invest in
children’s human capital, primarily conditional on regular attendance
at school and visiting health centres. Impact evaluation was built into
the program’s scale-up and replication. External evaluators found,
in 2001, that the program targeted the poor well, improved school
enrollment by an average of 0.7 additional years of schooling, and
brought down illness by 23 percent among children and 19 percent
fewer sick or disability days among adults. The program reduced
the probability of stunting by 1 centimeter per year for children
between the ages of 12 and 36 months. The evidence contributed
to the decision by the new administration, following a presidential
election, to expand the program by proving upper-middle school
scholarships and health programs for adolescents. Other social
assistance programs, such as a large and well-targeted tortilla subsidy
program, were scaled back.
5