Services
Monitoring, tracking and verification
We check that it arrived. Independent monitoring shows whether money, materials and services reached the people and places they were meant for, and whether reported results match what is on the ground.
Questions this answers
- Did the payment, the delivery or the service reach the intended people?
- Where does money slow down or stop between the budget and the facility?
- Do the results being reported match what we find?
The kinds of monitoring and verification we run
Most engagements combine two or three of these.
Third-party and independent monitoring
Checking a programme from outside it, so the people delivering it are not the people checking whether it worked.
Verification of beneficiaries, payments and deliveries
Confirming that the specific people, payments or goods a programme reports actually reached the people and places intended.
Public expenditure and fund-flow tracking
Following money from the budget line to the facility, to find out where it slows down, stalls, or does not arrive in full.
Service delivery tracking
Regular checks on whether a service is actually available where it is supposed to be, not only whether it was funded.
Validation of reported data
Checking a sample of what a programme reports against what independent checking finds, so you know how much to trust the rest.
Accessibility, quality audits and feedback mechanism reviews
Checking whether a service can actually be reached and used by the people it is for, and whether a complaint about it would be heard.
How we monitor and verify
The method changes how much a finding can be trusted. We state ours in every proposal.
More than one source, before we call it a finding.
A site visit, the official record and an independent interview, compared against each other, not one source taken on its own word.
Evidence that is dated and placed.
Photographs and, where used, GPS location and a timestamp, so a finding can be checked later, not just asserted.
An issue log, not a pass or fail score.
What was checked, how, and what did not add up — in enough detail that you can act on it, not just a single rating.
Independent of delivery.
We do not monitor or verify a programme we deliver, fund or advise on. If we have a conflict, we say so and may decline.
The five standards a check is measured against
We use the five data quality standards USAID set for the programmes it funded: validity, integrity, precision, reliability and timeliness. They give every donor reading a finding the same yardstick.
Validity
Does it measure what it claims to measure?
Integrity
Is it protected against error or manipulation?
Precision
Is there enough detail to act on it?
Reliability
Is it collected and analysed the same way every time, so a change means something?
Timeliness
Is it current enough to still matter?
What tracking has found elsewhere
Published studyIn 1996, a Public Expenditure Tracking Survey in Uganda followed a central government grant down to primary schools. Between 1991 and 1995, schools had received on average only 13 percent of it; most was captured along the way. The government then began publishing the grants in newspapers so schools and parents could check them, and a follow-up study found the campaign cut the capture of funds and improved enrolment and learning.
Reading an issue log
Illustrative| Site | What was checked | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Example site A | Vaccine stock against the delivery record | Record showed 200 doses delivered; 140 found on site. Facility log showed no discrepancy note. |
| Example site B | Cash transfer register against a sample of recipients | All 12 sampled recipients confirmed receipt, on time, in full. |
| Example site C | Complaints box, checked for function and use | Present but locked; no key held on site; no entries in 6 months. |
Two of three checks here raise a question; one does not. A verification report reads this way — specific and mixed — not as a single overall score.
Questions worth asking a monitoring provider
We built five questions from the USAID data quality standards and the Core Humanitarian Standard’s commitment on complaints mechanisms, and we answer all five in every proposal.
Which of the five data quality standards does this check cover?
Stated in the proposal, not assumed.
What happens when the record and what you find on the ground don’t match?
Logged as a discrepancy with both figures shown, not quietly resolved in favour of one source.
Is the person doing the verification independent of the delivery?
Yes, by policy. We state any conflict in our first reply and may decline.
How is evidence documented?
Photographs, and where used, GPS location, a timestamp, and a named checker.
Does this include the complaints mechanism itself, not just delivery?
Where asked for. When the CHS Alliance reviewed how aid organisations measure up to the Core Humanitarian Standard in 2020, the commitment on handling complaints scored lowest of the nine, so we do not assume a complaints mechanism is working.
What you receive
A verification or tracking report with an issue log that says what was checked, how, and what did not add up.
The report
Findings against the standard stated in the proposal, not a single overall score.
The issue log
Every discrepancy found, what was checked, and how.
What it means
Whether the pattern found is isolated or systemic, and what we would check next to be sure.
Questions people ask about monitoring and verification specifically
What’s the difference between monitoring and verification?
Monitoring is regular and ongoing, tracking whether a service is available over time. Verification is a specific check of a specific claim — that a payment reached someone, that a delivery arrived — usually once, against evidence.
Can you check somewhere you cannot physically visit?
Sometimes, using remote methods: phone verification with a sample of recipients, review of records and photographic evidence supplied by others, and geospatial checks where imagery is available. We say plainly what remote verification can and cannot confirm compared with a site visit.
What happens if you find something serious?
We red-flag it. Anything that suggests a risk to someone’s safety, fraud or a serious breach is reported to you by phone the same day, with a written note within 24 hours, and goes in the issue log. It is never held for the final report. If someone is at immediate risk, our team first follows the referral pathway agreed for the study. If the finding concerns your own staff or partners, the contract sets out in advance who else we report it to.
How is this different from an audit?
An audit checks compliance with financial rules and controls. Monitoring and verification checks whether the intended people actually received what was reported, which is a related but different question.
Need to know if something actually arrived?
Tell us what was meant to reach whom, and by when. We will say what a check can confirm, and what it cannot.