MEAL Glossary

A

Accountability

The obligation to explain decisions, take responsibility for results, and respond to stakeholders (especially affected people).

Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP)

Putting community voice, feedback, and safety at the center of program decisions.

Activity

A task or action carried out to produce outputs (e.g., training sessions, site visits).

Adaptive management

Making structured changes to plans and implementation based on evidence and learning.

Adequacy

Whether the scale/coverage of assistance is “enough” relative to the need.

After-action review (AAR)

A short reflection session after an activity/event to capture what worked, what didn’t, and what to improve.

Assumption

A condition outside the project’s control that must hold true for the logic to work.

Attribution

The extent to which observed changes can be credibly linked to the intervention (vs other factors).

B

Baseline

The starting value of an indicator before the intervention begins.

Benchmark

A reference point/standard used for comparison (internal or external).

Bias

A systematic error that leads to distorted findings (e.g., selection bias, recall bias).

Beneficiary

A person/group intended to directly benefit from the intervention.

C

Case study

An in-depth qualitative analysis of a program, site, or group.

Causal pathway

The “how and why” chain connecting activities to results.

Change management

A structured approach to shifting people/processes to a desired future state.

Cluster sampling

Sampling groups (clusters) first (e.g., villages), then selecting respondents inside clusters.

Coherence (OECD criterion)

How well an intervention fits with other interventions and policies (avoid duplication/contradiction).

Compliance monitoring

Checking adherence to rules, standards, SOPs, safeguards, or contracts.

Confidence interval

A range likely to contain the true value of an estimate (with a stated probability).

Conflict sensitivity

Understanding how an intervention interacts with conflict dynamics and adjusting to avoid harm.

Control group

A comparison group that does not receive the intervention (in experiments/quasi-experiments).

Cost-effectiveness analysis

Comparing options by cost per unit of outcome (e.g., cost per additional child immunized).

Counterfactual

What would have happened without the intervention (the “no-project” scenario).

Coverage

Who/what proportion is reached (often disaggregated by location/group).

D

Data quality

Fitness of data for use (accuracy, completeness, timeliness, consistency, integrity).

Data disaggregation

Splitting data by sex, age, disability, geography, income, etc. to see differences.

Data triangulation

Using multiple sources/methods to cross-check and strengthen findings.

Desk review

Reviewing documents and secondary data (reports, budgets, admin records).

Difference-in-differences (DiD)

A quasi-experimental method comparing change over time between treated and comparison groups.

Do No Harm

Designing and implementing in ways that minimize unintended negative effects.

Double counting

Counting the same person/output more than once—an indicator design/reporting error.

E

Effect

Any change (intended/unintended; positive/negative) linked to an intervention.

Effectiveness (OECD criterion)

The extent to which objectives/results are achieved.

Efficiency (OECD criterion)

How well resources (time, money, staff) are converted into results.

Endline

Final measurement of indicators at the end of an intervention.

Evaluation

A systematic assessment of design, implementation, and results to judge value and learn.

Evaluation question (EQ)

A focused question that the evaluation is designed to answer.

Evidence

Verifiable information used to support findings (documents, records, observations, data).

Equity

Fairness in processes and results—who benefits, who is left behind (often cross-cutting).

Ethics (research/evaluation)

Protecting participants: informed consent, confidentiality, safety, minimizing risk.

External evaluation

Conducted by independent evaluators outside the implementing team.

F

Feedback

Community/stakeholder comments, complaints, and suggestions used to improve delivery.

Feedback and response mechanism (FRM)

The channel + process to collect, track, and respond to feedback.

Fidelity

Whether activities were delivered as intended (dose, quality, targeting).

Focus group discussion (FGD)

Facilitated group conversation to explore perceptions/experiences.

Formative evaluation

Early-stage evaluation to improve design and implementation.

Frequency

How often an indicator is measured/reported (weekly, monthly, quarterly).

G

Gender analysis

Assessing gender roles, constraints, power, and risks to design better interventions.

Generalizability

Whether findings apply beyond the sampled group/context.

Goal (impact-level)

The highest-level intended change (often long-term).

Governance

Rules, roles, and accountability arrangements guiding decision-making.

Grievance mechanism

A formal channel to raise and resolve concerns/complaints safely.

H

Harmonization

Aligning indicators, tools, and reporting across partners to reduce duplication.

Human-centered design

Designing services around user needs and experiences, iteratively testing improvements.

I

Impact (OECD criterion)

Broader, longer-term positive/negative changes linked to the intervention (intended or not).

Impact evaluation

Designs aimed at estimating causal effects (experimental or strong quasi-experimental).

Indicator

A measurable sign of change used to track progress.

Informed consent

A participant’s voluntary agreement after understanding purpose, risks, and rights.

Input

Resources used (funds, staff, equipment, time).

Internal evaluation

Conducted by the implementing organization’s own staff/unit.

Intersectionality

Considering overlapping vulnerabilities (e.g., gender + disability + poverty).

J

Judgement

The evaluative conclusion about merit/worth based on evidence and criteria.

Justification

Clear rationale for methods, sampling, and decisions in MEAL work.

K

Key informant interview (KII)

Interview with someone who has specialized knowledge (officials, leaders, staff).

KPI (Key Performance Indicator)

A priority indicator used for high-level performance tracking.

L

Learning agenda

A prioritized set of learning questions that the program commits to answering.

Lesson learned

A practical insight supported by evidence that can improve future work.

Logic model

A visual map linking inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impact.

Logframe (Logical Framework Matrix)

A structured results framework (objectives, indicators, means of verification, assumptions).

M

MEAL

Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability & Learning—using evidence for performance, transparency, and improvement.

M&E (Monitoring & Evaluation)

Monitoring is continuous tracking; evaluation is periodic assessment of value and results.

Methodology

The overall approach and rationale for how data will be collected and analyzed.

Midline

Measurement taken mid-way to check progress and adjust.

Mixed methods

Combining quantitative (numbers) and qualitative (narratives) methods.

Monitoring

Routine collection and analysis of information to track implementation and indicator progress.

Most Significant Change (MSC)

A participatory method collecting “change stories” and selecting the most important ones.

Meta-analysis

Combining results from multiple studies/evaluations to derive broader conclusions.

N

Needs assessment

Determining what people need, how severe it is, and who is most affected.

Negative result

A finding showing no improvement or deterioration—still important learning.

Non-response

Missing responses that may bias survey results if systematic.

O

Outcome

A short- to medium-term change in behavior, capacity, access, or practice.

Output

A direct product/service delivered (e.g., road sections completed, staff trained).

Outcome harvesting

Identifying outcomes first, then working backward to see contribution and evidence.

Operational monitoring

Tracking day-to-day delivery, timelines, procurement, staffing, and bottlenecks.

P

Participatory monitoring

Communities/stakeholders actively help define indicators, collect data, and interpret findings.

Performance evaluation

Examines how and why results were achieved; often focuses on implementation and outcomes.

Process evaluation

Studies how implementation happened (fidelity, quality, barriers, enablers).

Program theory

The underlying logic explaining why the intervention should work.

Proxy indicator

An indirect measure used when direct measurement is difficult (with clear limitations).

PSEA

Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse—policies and controls to prevent/respond.

Q

Qualitative data

Non-numeric information (interviews, observations, open-ended responses).

Quantitative data

Numeric information used for counting, measuring, and statistical analysis.

Quality assurance (QA)

Steps to ensure MEAL products meet standards (tools, training, checks).

Quality control (QC)

Checks during data collection/entry to detect errors early.

R

RBM (Results-Based Management)

Managing by defining results, measuring progress, and using evidence for decisions.

Relevance (OECD criterion)

Fit of objectives/design to needs, priorities, and context.

Reliability

Consistency of a measure (would it give similar results if repeated?).

Reporting

Communicating performance, learning, and accountability information to stakeholders.

Results chain

The sequence from activities to outputs to outcomes to impact.

Risk register

A list of risks with likelihood, impact, mitigation actions, and owners.

S

Sample

A subset of a population selected for data collection.

Sampling frame

The list/source from which the sample is drawn.

Satisfaction survey

Captures user perceptions of quality, access, fairness, timeliness.

Safeguarding

Preventing and responding to harm, including SEA/SH, child protection, and exploitation.

SMART indicator

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound.

Stakeholder

Anyone who affects or is affected by the intervention.

Standard operating procedure (SOP)

Step-by-step instructions to standardize MEAL processes.

Sustainability (OECD criterion)

Likelihood that benefits continue after support ends (financial, institutional, social, environmental).

T

Target

The intended value to achieve for an indicator by a given time.

Theory of Change (ToC)

A detailed explanation of how change is expected to happen, including assumptions and context.

Third-party monitoring (TPM)

Independent monitoring conducted by an external party to increase credibility and reach.

Time series

Data collected repeatedly over time to see trends and seasonality.

Triangulation

Cross-checking data through multiple sources/methods (strengthens confidence).

U

Unintended effects

Positive/negative changes not planned in the design.

Utilization-focused evaluation

Designing evaluations for intended users and their decisions (use is central).

Uptake

The extent to which a service/product is adopted or used by the intended group.

V

Validity

Whether a tool measures what it claims to measure.

Verification

Checking reported results against evidence (documents, photos, site checks, registers).

Value for money (VfM)

Assessing economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of spending (context-specific).

W

Workplan

A time-bound plan of activities, responsibilities, and milestones.

Weighting

Assigning importance to criteria/indicators when scoring (must be transparent).

With/without comparison

Comparing those who received the intervention with those who did not (with caution about bias).

X

XLS/Database audit trail

A record of edits/entries showing who changed what and when (useful for data integrity).

Y

Yield (program yield)

The “return” from activities—e.g., number successfully completing training or adopting practices (define carefully).

Z

Zero tolerance

A strict policy stance (often used for fraud/SEA), paired with reporting channels and enforcement.