MEL (Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning) is a system of tools that help organizations track whether their work is making the difference they want it to, and improve based on what they find out.Â
Based on the findings from our needs assessment and the input from supported partner organizations, The Mission Motor redesigned its MEL service package. The services remain free for animal advocacy organizations. Â
MEL System Assessment: review your current MEL system across 13 key areas, from theory of change and data systems to leadership buy-in and staff skills. With this assessment, you can better determine the most important MEL areas to work on.
MEL System Support: A dedicated advisor works alongside your team to design, improve, and implement your MEL system.
Program design: needs assessment, stakeholder analysis, theory of change, etc.
Program Evaluation: either done with direct support from TMM or TMM can help you find a suitable external (paid) evaluator.
Time-limited, specific MEL questions: just email us, and we'll get back to you.
For more information and the application form, see our services page, or send an email to [email protected] if you have questions.
Thanks for offering Vasco! We'll likely take you up on this.Â
An impact analysis or cost-effectiveness estimate is one of the most asked questions. When talking with the organizations, we however almost always land on gathering data on the project first to inform why a program is generating results (otherwise, a CEA/CEE isn't very actionable).
However, I wouldn't be surprised if we do some in the coming period. Even if the actual number of animal/dollar isn't actionable (yet), a CEA/CEE can be used to identify the most likely drivers for impact. Let's stay in touch!
Just a quick word from me, Nicoll from The Mission Motor (TMM supports Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning in the animal movement). Thanks Stien, for your balanced and clear thoughts and for asking for our take.
Based on what I read, I would consider this to be a novel and higher-risk intervention. Many of the more common interventions in the animal space could do with more robust data gathering, but a higher-risk/novel intervention would warrant an even stronger focus on MEL.
Common data gathering instruments, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc. (when asking the right questions), can work well here to gather relevant data. And, saying this with a bit of caution, I don't think more elaborate MEL tools are needed.
Some of the challenges we foresee are reaching particular groups you might want data on (eg. people who read the campaign materials and don’t actively engage, but could change their attitude or behaviour) and saying something sensible about the overall effect of the campaign. Particularly as it likely impacts another campaign (Veganuary), and because of comparing increased animal welfare through donations vs less animals in factory farming leading net negative lives as a result of less animal consumption.Â
I think it is possible to overcome these and other challenges, but this might come at too high a cost to still be a responsible use of resources.
To be able to properly comment on credible indicators, I'd love to know the specific Theory of Change, so I won't go into that now.Â
I totally assume FarmKind has done some MEL work already, but if we can be of assistance, we’d be happy to help! Â
We sometimes do. Please let us know what kind of help you would like by either filling out the intake form on the website or sending an email to [email protected], and we'll be in touch.
Hi Vasco, Great question we've been looking into for a while now. We indeed use cost-effectiveness as one factor to decide which organizations to support more intensively. We also look at other factors.
The research base (and practicing MEL) is not yet very well developed for animal interventions. Also, interventions that are cost-effective now, might not be in a few years from now if e.g. the context changes. Besides the evidence base not being robust (yet), it is also more difficult to assess the longer-term effects of interventions.
MEL can contribute to building an evidence base for interventions and to know when to pivot or scale. It is therefore important for The Mission Motor to not only support interventions that are assessed as being cost-effective and impactful now, but also to help collect data on existing, or novel interventions without a firm evidence base yet, that have the potential to be impactful.
What we've landed on is to use a set of proxies primarily for organizations we support longer-term. As said, (potential) cost-effectiveness is a factor, next to other factors such as the ability to grow in MEL capacity (can we still contribute?) and organizational characteristics such as learning attitude, capacity to work on MEL, and a certain stability.
Let me know if you have input or questions plse! We'll be evaluating this system, and probably updating it regularly.
It's a joy working with your team and seeing the progress you've made! Thank you for the special shout-out to The Mission Motor. We're here to help :-)
Thanks for mentioning The Mission Motor Alex. Because of the holidays, I'm quite late to this party :-), so almost everything has already been said.
Just a short response to stress that indeed as The Mission Motor we support animal organizations to collect credible and relevant data. By doing so, we aim to contribute to collecting more and more data that will be useful for organizations, donors, and funders on where to direct their resources.
We have noticed that within the animal cause area, there is less room for large quantitative tools such as RCTs, due to many interventions working with lower numbers of target groups and due to a lack of money (RCTs are usually pretty expensive). However, also with other monitoring and evaluation tools, we can uncover relevant and useful information!
Our budget for 2025 has not been filled yet, so I would invite anyone interested in donating to The Mission Motor to contact me.
Updated MEL services from The Mission Motor
MEL (Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning) is a system of tools that help organizations track whether their work is making the difference they want it to, and improve based on what they find out.Â
Based on the findings from our needs assessment and the input from supported partner organizations, The Mission Motor redesigned its MEL service package. The services remain free for animal advocacy organizations.
Â
For more information and the application form, see our services page, or send an email to [email protected] if you have questions.
Thanks for offering Vasco! We'll likely take you up on this.Â
An impact analysis or cost-effectiveness estimate is one of the most asked questions. When talking with the organizations, we however almost always land on gathering data on the project first to inform why a program is generating results (otherwise, a CEA/CEE isn't very actionable).
However, I wouldn't be surprised if we do some in the coming period. Even if the actual number of animal/dollar isn't actionable (yet), a CEA/CEE can be used to identify the most likely drivers for impact. Let's stay in touch!
Just a quick word from me, Nicoll from The Mission Motor (TMM supports Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning in the animal movement). Thanks Stien, for your balanced and clear thoughts and for asking for our take.
Based on what I read, I would consider this to be a novel and higher-risk intervention. Many of the more common interventions in the animal space could do with more robust data gathering, but a higher-risk/novel intervention would warrant an even stronger focus on MEL.
Common data gathering instruments, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc. (when asking the right questions), can work well here to gather relevant data. And, saying this with a bit of caution, I don't think more elaborate MEL tools are needed.
Some of the challenges we foresee are reaching particular groups you might want data on (eg. people who read the campaign materials and don’t actively engage, but could change their attitude or behaviour) and saying something sensible about the overall effect of the campaign. Particularly as it likely impacts another campaign (Veganuary), and because of comparing increased animal welfare through donations vs less animals in factory farming leading net negative lives as a result of less animal consumption.Â
I think it is possible to overcome these and other challenges, but this might come at too high a cost to still be a responsible use of resources.
To be able to properly comment on credible indicators, I'd love to know the specific Theory of Change, so I won't go into that now.Â
I totally assume FarmKind has done some MEL work already, but if we can be of assistance, we’d be happy to help!
Â
We sometimes do. Please let us know what kind of help you would like by either filling out the intake form on the website or sending an email to [email protected], and we'll be in touch.
Insightful! Thanks for writing this.
Food for thought! (and research or M&E)
You're welcome. Let us know please if you have any questions :)
Hi Vasco, Great question we've been looking into for a while now. We indeed use cost-effectiveness as one factor to decide which organizations to support more intensively. We also look at other factors.
The research base (and practicing MEL) is not yet very well developed for animal interventions. Also, interventions that are cost-effective now, might not be in a few years from now if e.g. the context changes. Besides the evidence base not being robust (yet), it is also more difficult to assess the longer-term effects of interventions.
MEL can contribute to building an evidence base for interventions and to know when to pivot or scale. It is therefore important for The Mission Motor to not only support interventions that are assessed as being cost-effective and impactful now, but also to help collect data on existing, or novel interventions without a firm evidence base yet, that have the potential to be impactful.
What we've landed on is to use a set of proxies primarily for organizations we support longer-term. As said, (potential) cost-effectiveness is a factor, next to other factors such as the ability to grow in MEL capacity (can we still contribute?) and organizational characteristics such as learning attitude, capacity to work on MEL, and a certain stability.
Let me know if you have input or questions plse! We'll be evaluating this system, and probably updating it regularly.
It's a joy working with your team and seeing the progress you've made! Thank you for the special shout-out to The Mission Motor. We're here to help :-)
Thanks for mentioning The Mission Motor Alex. Because of the holidays, I'm quite late to this party :-), so almost everything has already been said.
Just a short response to stress that indeed as The Mission Motor we support animal organizations to collect credible and relevant data. By doing so, we aim to contribute to collecting more and more data that will be useful for organizations, donors, and funders on where to direct their resources.
We have noticed that within the animal cause area, there is less room for large quantitative tools such as RCTs, due to many interventions working with lower numbers of target groups and due to a lack of money (RCTs are usually pretty expensive). However, also with other monitoring and evaluation tools, we can uncover relevant and useful information!
Our budget for 2025 has not been filled yet, so I would invite anyone interested in donating to The Mission Motor to contact me.