• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
  • Blogs
Home»Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation

Woman in Laos (DFAT)

Monitoring & evaluation: topic guide

Money (Epsos, Flickr)

Designing and monitoring PFM reform: helpdesk report

Indicators and Methods for Assessing Entrepreneurship Training Programmes

Helpdesk Report
  • Zenobia Ismail
May 2018

Entrepreneurship training programmes are an important component of demand-side job creation strategies in developing countries (Fox and Kaul, 2017). Assessments of such programmes are constrained by variations in the programme content, as entrepreneurship training is often combined with grants, life-skills training, internships and mentorship. The targets of these programmes ...» more

Aid Absorption: Factors and Measurements

Helpdesk Report
  • Huma Haider
March 2018

Absorptive capacity refers to ‘the ability to use additional aid without pronounced inefficiency of public spending and without induced adverse effects’ (Bourguignon and Sundberg, 2007, 640). An absorptive capacity limit is a point at which a country can no longer absorb or spend aid efficiently and aid is then subject to diminishing returns (IES, 2017; Dornan and Pryke, ...» more

M&E methods for local government performance

Helpdesk Report
  • Anna Louise Strachan
March 2018

A range of methods can be used to monitor and evaluate whether a programme/workstream has contributed to change in local governance, service delivery and economic development, and to generate understanding and knowledge that can be shared with others to support better governance, service delivery and economic development in a decentralised government system. This report ...» more

Humanitarian results indicators and how they relate to the SDGs

Helpdesk Report
  • Anna Strachan
April 2017

Donor agencies use a number of indicators for humanitarian action.  In June 2016, ECHO reduced the number of KRIs (Key Results Indicators) it uses from 113 to 35 (ECHO also permits partners to combine pre-defined key results indicators with additional custom indicators).  In addition to the sectors covered in this report ECHO also has humanitarian indicators for mine action and ...» more

Decentralisation of budgeting process

Literature Review
  • Linnea Mills
January 2017

This literature review examines evidence about the impact of public financial management (PFM) interventions in the field of decentralisation of budgeting. It asks: What is the effectiveness of devolved budgeting models in relation to the efficiency of PFM systems, service delivery, budget allocation, citizen involvement, accountability and anti-corruption?  What factors ...» more

« Previous Page
Next Page »
  • Monitoring and evaluation
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
      • Participatory approaches
      • Value for money
birminghamids hcri

Contact Us Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more