Moving Beyond the Donor Focus in MEL: A Case for Localizing MEL and Adding “Value.”

There are numerous reasons to monitor and evaluate interventions (programs and projects). Broadly speaking, monitoring and evaluation provides accountability for resources to (a) demonstrate how resources are being used and what the resources are delivering for key stakeholders and (b) help implementation teams derive insights to make resources “go further.” That said, monitoring and evaluation is strongly influenced by who monitors and evaluates. In this blog, I make a case for considering whose MEL voice is heard in data collection and analysis. The emphasis on who helps us not only to be more efficient and effective with MEL activities, but also to explicate why certain results matter (or not). I note the important role that local MEL colleagues play in orienting and refining MEL activities, with “local” referring to individuals that have a lived (not transient) experience in a country context, speak the local language(s), and/or intuitively relate to – and can navigate – culture and power dynamics.

In this blog, I make a case for considering whose MEL voice is heard in data collection and analysis.

What Do I Mean by Localizing MEL?

Localizing has had a strong and protracted presence in public discourse in the aid industry. From decolonializing aid to what localisation could look like, the aid industry has explored the purpose, value, and morality of localization. Practically, localization includes measures such as hiring local staff, transferring a greater percentage of programme costs to “local” organizations, and supporting local knowledge institutions, such as universities and think tanks, to serve as thought leaders. I believe a key aspect of localizing MEL is people.

Why Do Local MEL Experts Matter?

In many ways, it is intuitive that local experts add value. However, I find that the way we typically leverage the expertise of local MEL experts does not adequately reflect the real value they can add to MEL processes and outputs. Local MEL colleagues have expertise, access and reach, and trust, which means that local partners, communities, and local governments are often more willing to engage with them in meaningful ways. Access and trust facilitate iteration, trial-and-error, and more nimble data-collection processes. I am not suggesting that access and trust are inherent in relationships with local MEL colleagues. However, in my experience, local MEL experts have frequently expedited relationship-building and trust with local actors. These MEL experts speak the same language, are more likely to identify challenges in data collection (local hierarchies, for example), and are more likely to build informal strategies that help build ownership and greater engagement from those we seek to gather information from. I have found that these engagements have led to efficiencies and better-quality data that I might not have been able to gather myself.

More trusting relationships also help to maintain longer-term relationships with stakeholders, supporting evaluations and post-project engagement. Very importantly, partners derive value when engaging with local MEL experts on, for example, the provision of mentoring on how to measure change effectively. These partners can be reticent to reach out for clarification and support if the MEL expert is not local. Local MEL experts, I find, have provided value beyond simply gathering and validating data; they have given value back to local partners and stakeholders by upskilling in informal yet powerful ways. The informal, yet powerful, support provided by local MEL experts helps to build stronger local partner capabilities, which in turn can help balance power dynamics. This in itself is a moral imperative. Yet, the positive efficiencies and efficacy of MEL activities further strengthens the moral argument. 

Working More Substantively with Local MEL Experts

Local MEL experts facilitate access and trust (and, of course, expertise) that deliver better quality and more meaningful data. Trust and access can also help with post-project activities like evaluations and learning reports. Just as importantly, in an industry where most MEL experts extract rather than contribute, local MEL experts often informally mentor local partners and stakeholders to better understand MEL processes, and the value of MEL. The informal support helps address uneven power dynamics and strengthen local partner capabilities, adding intangible value. I make a case to bring more local MEL experts, more substantively into MEL activities, the value they bring is widespread – both tangible and intangible.