In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the dominant approach for M&E will likely include monitoring and process or adequacy evaluations. During outbreaks it is less common for impact evaluations to be used. This is because impact evaluations are typically more costly (involving external staff and tighter controls on how data is collected), introduce ethical challenges (such as the use of control groups), and require a behavioural or health outcome measure (likely to be challenging to collect with quality at this time). For more information on why health measures are not widely used during outbreaks see this section. Instead, we recommend that project implementers prioritise assessing the progress of your intervention against predetermined behavioural and access targets related to the project’s outcomes.
Given the scale of COVID-19 there may be many organisations in your area collecting monitoring and evaluation data. To avoid duplication and data collection fatigue among your populations, try to coordinate your M&E processes with other organisations working in the same area.
Want to learn more about general principles for monitoring and evaluation of COVID-19 related hygiene projects?
- What is the difference between monitoring and evaluation?
- What is a ‘theory of change’ and how can it be applied to COVID-19 preventive behaviours?
- Which types of evaluations work best for COVID-19 hygiene projects?
- Should we be tracking cases and mortality rates to understand whether our programmes are having an impact?
- What if monitoring and evaluation processes show that my organisation's project didn’t work as expected?
- What other resources are there on Monitoring and Evaluation?
Last updated: 02.07.2020