Baseline
Collected at enrolment before support begins, so later change can be described honestly.
Draft document · v0.1
Monitoring and evaluation framework.
This draft sets out what the Foundation intends to measure, how, how often, and the rules it will follow when reporting — including how it will report disappointing findings.
Status of this document
Working draft v0.1 — not formally adopted
This framework describes an intended measurement approach. No data has been collected and no indicator has a value. Baselines would be established at enrolment, before any support is delivered.
Indicator set
Proposed indicators and methods
| Outcome area | Indicator | Collection method | Current value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food security | Household-reported food access and coping behaviour | Structured household survey at baseline and review points | No data yet |
| Education participation | School attendance status of dependent children | Household report, corroborated where a school partner consents | No data yet |
| Accommodation stability | Housing situation and involuntary moves | Household survey at review points | No data yet |
| Household resilience | Ability to meet an unexpected essential cost | Household survey question set | No data yet |
| Payment reliability | Proportion of scheduled payments delivered in full and on time | Payment instruction and provider reconciliation records | No data yet |
| Safeguarding | Concerns raised, response time, resolution status | Safeguarding log and grievance register | No data yet |
| Grievance handling | Cases received, upheld, resolved and time to resolution | Grievance and appeal register | No data yet |
| Cost | Full cost per household per period, including overheads | Financial records mapped to caseload | No data yet |
Method
How measurement would work
Review points
Periodic household review combining verification, welfare check and outcome questions.
Post-distribution monitoring
Independent-of-delivery checks that support was received, in full, without informal deductions.
Independent evaluation
Proposed in Phase 2, so that findings are not produced solely by the party delivering the programme.
Data protection
Rules that constrain measurement
- Collect the minimum data required for eligibility, payment and safeguarding — nothing gathered for interest alone.
- Seek informed consent in a language and manner the household understands, including the right to decline questions.
- Never publish data that could identify a household or place it at risk; report aggregates only.
- Restrict access by role, log access, and set retention and deletion periods.
- Keep monitoring participation separate from entitlement: declining a survey must not reduce support.
Reporting rules
How findings would be published
Separate the categories
Proposed targets, delivery figures and evaluated outcomes are reported distinctly and never merged.
Publish limitations
Sample size, non-response, access constraints and measurement weaknesses are stated with every figure.
Publish negative findings
Results that do not support the model are published on the same basis as favourable ones.
Comment on this draft
Technical review is welcome, particularly from agencies with experience of cash transfers, beneficiary targeting, safeguarding and monitoring in Afghanistan. Written comments are read and logged, and revisions are versioned.