Harmonised monitoring architecture for a global alliance of 1,100+ member organisations across 70+ countries, paired with rigorous evaluation frameworks for measuring programme impact.
A centralised data architecture designed to harmonise reporting from diverse member organisations using different tools, languages, and formats.
The architecture below illustrates how data flows from 1,100+ member organisations through validation, harmonisation, and governance layers into a unified indicator database powering multilingual dashboards and automated reporting.
Member orgs operate in 40+ languages. The integration layer normalises indicator labels and definitions into four official languages (EN, FR, PT, ES) with fallback mappings for local variants.
Members use KoBoToolbox, SurveyCTO, ODK, CommCare, and bespoke Excel templates. API connectors handle structured feeds; Power Query transformations standardise flat-file uploads.
Not all members can report on all indicators at once. The system supports tiered reporting: a core set of 8 mandatory indicators and 24 optional indicators phased in over three years.
The master indicator dictionary standardises definitions, disaggregation requirements, and reporting frequencies across all member organisations. Below is an extract of the core mandatory indicators.
| Code | Indicator | Definition | Disaggregation | Source | Frequency | Target | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IND-001 | Organisations reporting against harmonised indicators | Count of member orgs that submitted at least one complete dataset in the reporting period | By region, org size | KoBoToolbox | Quarterly | 850 | 312 |
| IND-002 | Members meeting governance threshold | % of member orgs scoring ≥70% on the governance self-assessment tool | By region | Self-assessment | Annual | 65% | 41% |
| IND-003 | Children reached through member programmes | Cumulative unique children directly benefiting from member-delivered services | Sex, age (0–5, 6–11, 12–17), disability status | Partner reports | Semi-annual | 14.2M | 9.8M |
| IND-004 | Members with functional M&E systems | % of members with dedicated M&E staff, documented plan, and evidence of data use | By region, org size | Capacity assessment | Annual | 55% | 28% |
| IND-005 | Gender-transformative practice score | Average score on the 5-point Gender Integration Continuum Scale | By programme type | Self-assessment | Annual | 3.5 | 2.1 |
| IND-006 | Advocacy actions taken | Number of documented advocacy events, statements, or policy submissions by members | By type (event, statement, submission) | Event tracking | Quarterly | 240 | 87 |
| IND-007 | Community feedback response rate | % of community feedback cases acknowledged and responded to within 30 days | By feedback channel (hotline, suggestion box, digital) | CRM system | Quarterly | 85% | 52% |
| IND-008 | Data quality assessment score | Average DQA score across all reporting members (composite of completeness, timeliness, accuracy, consistency) | By region, org size | DQA tool | Annual | 80% | 54% |
Rigorous evaluation designs applied to education and development programmes, drawing on OECD DAC criteria and mixed-methods approaches.
Was the intervention aligned with the needs and priorities of beneficiaries?
Does the intervention fit with other policies and programmes in the context?
Did the intervention achieve its intended objectives and results?
Were resources used optimally to deliver results?
What broader changes - positive and negative - did the intervention produce?
Will the benefits and systems continue after funding ends?
GEC endline evaluation: estimating learning outcomes for marginalised girls
Education & bicycle mobility programme: mapping causal pathways from inputs to impact
Youth economic empowerment programme - ethical rollout with built-in counterfactual
Core methodological competencies applied across programme evaluations and MEL system design engagements.