Comments
Great data and summary! I agree that we need to normalize funding for MEL from the jump for orgs young and old. 10% seems like a great starting point
How we used a needs assessment and a learning review to shape our 2026 service redesign.
A needs assessment (40 orgs) and a learning review of our 2025 short-term support (30 engagements) showed animal advocacy organizations want both immediate insights and deeper, functional MEL systems, but lack time, skills, and funding to build the latter. Our old service model often ran long without reaching data collection or analysis. We therefore redesigned our service portfolio, and we're asking organizations and funders to build in MEL capacity (aiming for a 10% provision) to make it stick.
The Mission Motor (TMM) supports farmed and wild animal advocacy organizations in developing and implementing Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) systems. After two years of delivery, we took a deliberate strategic pause in early 2026 to check whether our service model was actually addressing the movement's needs.
The studies
Two studies fed the March 2026 redesign of our services: a MEL Needs Assessment Survey of 40 organizations (March 2026) on the state of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) practice and support needs across the movement, and a Short-Term Support (STS) Learning Review of 30 support engagements across 28 organizations (October 2024 to October 2025) on perceptions of what our primary 2025 service actually achieved.
Findings indicated that organizations want both immediate insights and deeper, functional MEL systems. While our old model excelled at delivering early MEL components, it wasn't addressing the full scope of identified MEL system needs.
Study limitations: The needs assessment used a convenience sample via our networks; it likely overrepresents MEL-engaged organizations, and practice is self-reported. The STS review draws on perception data from MEL advisors (23 responses) and staff of supported organizations (27 responses, ~80% org coverage); progress is self-reported, not independently verified. 12 of 30 engagements were ongoing at point of assessment.
Each finding maps to a design decision in the new service portfolio. Here are five of the clearest examples:
| We learned | So we now | New service |
| Short-term engagements overran their intended timeframe and stopped upstream of creating functional learning loops | Build full MEL systems on a co-developed plan, sized to the organization's starting point, with sustainability and phased exit designed in | MEL System Support |
| Partners wanted a roadmap for the support to inform expectations, and we often lacked baseline context to scope well | Provide a structured 13-component MEL system assessment and status report. Mandatory for organizations receiving MEL System Support | MEL System Assessment |
| Focused products, especially Theory of Change work, deliver reliable standalone insights without needing a full system | Offer bounded, product-focused design and evaluation engagements with deliverables | Program Design, Program Evaluation |
| The top barriers are time and skills, and templates and tools were the most wanted format | a. Publish self-serve, movement-adapted MEL resources; continue to answer small questions fast. b. Use these low barrier-to-entry options to engage organizations and direct them toward our skill-building MEL System Support | 1-to-Many MEL Content, Ask an Advisor; MEL System Support |
| Organizations have limited MEL capacity, and funders request metrics organizations find difficult to produce | Work directly with funders and movement influencers on MEL expectations and funding | Funder and influencer engagement |
Different organizations enter at different points, so the portfolio spans low-touch to high-touch — a few hours of initial guidance to several-month hands-on engagements — suited to different levels of MEL maturity:
Full service descriptions are on our website.
Wherever you are starting, there is an entry point for you. We tailor our service suggestions to the needs and starting point of the organization requesting support, whatever those are. To make this accessible, all of our support is free of charge, but to make the most of it, you as an organization need some MEL capacity in your team.
We would like to see funding requests for program work include a 10% MEL provision.
There is a lot we can still do without this funding, but a fully functioning MEL system needs allocated resources.
The MEL funding gap is structural. Many organizations have a clear need for better Program Design and MEL, but do not yet have the resources to realise this themselves, so funders need to invest in organizations' capacity to do this work.
We would like to see 10% of grant funding for program work designated for MEL.
There are other ways in. Fund or commission evaluations of your grantees, including through our Evaluation Support service. And talk to us about what suitable MEL evidence looks like before setting reporting requirements; funders frequently ask for exactly the metrics organizations are least equipped to produce.
This document is itself an example of the practice we promote: gathering evidence and acting on it to improve.
If you're an organization figuring out where to start with MEL, or a funder thinking through how to structure MEL expectations or funding, we'd like to hear from you. Reach out to us at [email protected] or find us at the CARE Conference in September.
Full reports:
"75% of organizations say improving MEL is important or urgent, but only 18% would definitely pay for it."
That's a rather upsetting finding. To turn MEL into an ongoing function rather than just a one-off deep dive you need structures in place, people with expertise, tools to collect data etc. It's worth the investment, but funders/orgs definitely have to be willing to put money behind it.
Looking forward to seeing what you produce!