Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) is often described as the backbone of impactful development work, yet it remains one of the most underfunded and undervalued areas within India’s social sector. Despite growing expectations for accountability and demonstrable outcomes in CSR and philanthropy, a recent study by Sambodhi Research reveals that nearly 59% of NGOs allocate less than 5% of their budgets to MEL. This chronic underinvestment is not merely a question of resources but reflects deeper structural and cultural challenges—where service delivery is prioritized over reflection, and compliance-driven reporting often overshadows genuine learning.
In this exclusive interview with TheCSRUniverse, Rajib Nandi, Deputy Vice President at Sambodhi Research, unpacks the findings of the study and sheds light on the risks of deprioritizing MEL for both NGOs and CSR-funded programs. He emphasizes the need to reframe MEL as foundational infrastructure—an enabler of adaptive strategies, participatory accountability, and community voice—rather than a donor-mandated obligation. From reimagining frameworks that move beyond upward reporting to building inclusive, participatory, and technology-sensitive systems, Rajib outlines a vision for MEL that is not just about tracking change, but about co-creating it.
Q&A
Q. Your study finds that 59% of NGOs allocate less than 5% of their budgets to MEL. What drives this underinvestment, and what are the long-term risks for CSR-funded programs if MEL continues to be deprioritized?
A. The chronic underinvestment in Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) within India’s civil society space is rooted in a combination of cultural, structural, and systemic factors. Historically, MEL has not been embedded within the institutional DNA of most CSOs. The culture of systematically tracking social change—especially in terms of contribution and attribution—was never mainstreamed. Most organizations prioritized service delivery and outreach over reflection and learning. In this context, MEL often remained peripheral—seen as a funder-mandated activity rather than a tool for organizational growth and community accountability.
It's true that over the years, MEL has gained visibility, particularly through donor mandates. However, this visibility has largely translated into a compliance burden, with limited focus on adaptive learning or participatory feedback. As our study highlights, nearly 6 out of 10 organizations allocate less than 5% of their budgets to MEL, and among smaller grassroots organizations, this figure is often even lower. Many organizations don’t request MEL support simply because they see it as overly technical, unaffordable, or disconnected from community realities.
This underinvestment has far-reaching implications, especially in CSR-funded programs, where expectations for impact and accountability are rising. Without adequate MEL systems:
- Learning loops remain broken—organizations struggle to make sense of what worked, what didn’t, and why.
- Data remains one-directional, primarily serving upward reporting, with little value for internal decision-making or community engagement.
- Evidence-based design and adaptation suffer—projects continue based on assumptions, rather than lived realities and contextual insights.
- And most critically, accountability to communities is weakened, as MEL is rarely co-owned by the people closest to the intervention.
From a CSR perspective, this means that programmes risk becoming activity-heavy but insight-light—unable to demonstrate sustained outcomes, justify scaling, or refine strategies in real time. The absence of robust MEL weakens the very premise of CSR: delivering measurable, responsible, and strategic impact.
In my opinion, MEL must be reframed not as a post-facto evaluation tool but as foundational infrastructure—integrated into the organizational development of CSOs. This requires patient capital, capacity investments, and a shift toward co-created MEL systems that support continuous learning, strategic agility, and community voice. Only then can MEL truly serve as the driver of adaptive, accountable development that both CSOs and CSR partners aspire to achieve.
Q. The report highlights that 73% of collected data flows upward to donors, but only 18% informs internal decisions. How can CSR funders and NGOs collaboratively redesign MEL frameworks to move beyond compliance reporting and make learning central to program design?
A. This imbalance reflects a deeper structural issue. MEL has been positioned largely as a reporting function rather than as a learning tool. As our study shows, nearly three-quarters of data collected by CSOs goes upward to meet donor requirements, while only a fraction loops back into the organizations themselves. This not only creates a missed opportunity but also risks reinforcing practices where communities contribute data without seeing its value in shaping programs.
To change this, both CSR funders and NGOs need to reimagine MEL as a shared, co-owned process rather than a compliance exercise. This requires several shifts:
a. Reframe MEL as a continuous, internal process. Monitoring should serve as a tool for organizations to reflect and adapt in real time, not just as a mechanism for reporting. Evaluation, too, should be participatory and contextual, rather than outsourced entirely to external experts. Most importantly, the “L” in MEL—Learning—must be embraced by all stakeholders as central to adaptive, meaningful development.
b. Co-design frameworks with dual accountability. Donors and NGOs can jointly build MEL systems that serve both upward accountability and internal learning. This means creating space for flexible indicators, participatory methods, and context-driven measures that communities and NGOs find useful.
c. Invest in organizational capacity. CSR funders can support NGOs in strengthening in-house MEL capabilities—training staff, equipping teams with user-friendly tools, and embedding reflective practices into daily routines. Over time, this will help NGOs see MEL not as a technical burden but as an enabler of strategic clarity and community responsiveness.
d. Close the feedback loop with communities. Sharing findings back with the people who generate data—and involving them in interpreting and using it—ensures MEL becomes more democratic and grounded. When MEL is rooted in community voice, its relevance multiplies.
Q. While 81.8% of NGOs share findings with communities, few involve them in shaping indicators or interpreting results. What does a genuinely participatory MEL system look like, and how can funders support grassroots ownership of metrics and impact definitions?
A. While the data says 81.8% of CSOs share findings with communities, we anecdotally and experientially know that the actual numbers could be much lower. NGOs sharing findings with the community doesn’t often mean meaningful engagement.
Sharing, in many cases, is limited to periodic updates or project reports rather than meaningful engagement. Moreover, “community” is rarely a homogenous entity—within it exist diverse identities, interests, and power dynamics. True participation requires recognizing these differences and ensuring marginalized voices are not drowned out by dominant ones.
A genuinely participatory MEL system goes well beyond reporting results back. It means:
- Co-creating indicators with communities so that measures of success reflect their lived realities, not just donor logframes. For instance, a women’s collective might define empowerment differently than an external evaluator would.
- Facilitating community-led analysis and sense-making. Numbers alone rarely resonate; participatory tools like storytelling, social mapping, or community scorecards help translate data into insights that communities can connect with and act upon.
- Closing the loop. Findings must cycle back to communities in accessible formats—through dialogues, visual tools, or informal forums—so that they shape future design and ownership.
For funders, this requires a mindset shift. Many CSR funders still view MEL primarily as an accountability mechanism to showcase success through quantitative indicators. While numbers matter, they cannot substitute for learning. Funders can play a catalytic role by:
- Investing in organizational capacity for participatory and gender-responsive MEL, rather than limiting support to reporting formats.
- Providing flexibility in frameworks so that NGOs can integrate community-defined outcomes alongside donor-defined metrics.
- Valuing qualitative insights—stories, voices, and contextual interpretations—as much as quantitative outputs.
Ultimately, participatory MEL is about shifting power over what counts and whose voices matter.When communities define impact on their own terms, MEL stops being one-directional and becomes a tool for dignity, accountability, and shared ownership of change.
Q. The report highlights inspiring grassroots innovations—like transgender collectives designing their own indicators and women’s groups in Odisha conducting social audits. How can CSR strategies mainstream such community-led approaches to redefine success metrics?
A. The examples of transgender collectives creating their own indicators or women’s groups leading social audits are powerful reminders that communities themselves are the best architects of what change should look like. Yet, as we observed in our study, these practices remain sporadic and poorly documented. They are often overshadowed by the dominance of numeric reporting frameworks that privilege scale over depth.
For CSR strategies to truly mainstream community-led MEL approaches, three shifts are essential:
a. Value beyond numbers. CSR funders need to expand their definition of evidence. Success should not only be measured in quantitative outputs but also in qualitative shifts—such as confidence, agency, or changes in community dynamics—that are often best captured through participatory methods like Most Significant Change, storytelling, or community mapping.
b. Invest in capacity, not just technology. Dashboards and data platforms have their place, but without participatory, gender-responsive, and context-sensitive capacities within NGOs, they risk reinforcing top-down systems. Building the skills and confidence of frontline staff and community members to define and track outcomes is critical.
c. Enable flexibility and co-creation. CSR frameworks should allow space for NGOs and communities to propose their own indicators alongside funder-defined ones. This dual framework ensures that reporting requirements are met while also validating community knowledge and priorities.
When CSR embraces such approaches, it redefines success not as a donor-driven metric but as a collective narrative of change. It shifts the role of MEL from a technical exercise to a democratic process—one that recognizes lived experience as evidence and treats community ownership as central to sustainability.
Q. The study notes growing digitization but also rising exclusions due to literacy, language, and access barriers. How can MEL systems leverage technology without marginalizing frontline workers and vulnerable groups?
A. Digitization is reshaping how data is collected, analyzed, and shared in the development sector. Tools like mobile surveys, dashboards, and even AI-assisted analysis are becoming increasingly common. However, as our study shows, technology is not neutral. Without careful design, it risks leaving behind the very people whose voices MEL is meant to amplify—frontline workers, women, marginalized communities, and those with limited literacy or digital access.
The challenge, therefore, is not whether to digitize, but how to digitize responsibly. This requires a few deliberate shifts:
a. Balance technology with human intelligence. Digital tools must complement—not replace—the contextual knowledge and relational trust that frontline workers bring. For example, WhatsApp groups, community scorecards, or audio-based feedback tools can be integrated in ways that are simple, inclusive, and accessible.
b. Design for inclusion. CSR funders and NGOs must adopt a gender and intersectional lens in technology adoption. This means investing in multilingual platforms, low-tech solutions, and hybrid models that bridge digital with analogue methods. A social audit in Odisha or a storytelling circle in a rural collective can be just as powerful as a dashboard, provided it feeds into the learning system.
c. Invest in capacity, not just tools. Technology alone will not strengthen MEL. Training frontline staff and communities to use these tools meaningfully—beyond mere data entry—is essential. Equally important is investing in organizational processes that encourage reflection and use of digital insights for decision-making.
d. Co-create and test with users. Too often, tech solutions are imposed from the top. Instead, MEL systems must be co-designed with frontline workers and communities, ensuring usability, cultural fit, and ownership.
Digitization can unlock new possibilities, but only if it is embedded in inclusive, context-sensitive practices. Otherwise, the risk is that MEL becomes more efficient at collecting numbers but less effective at amplifying voices.
Q. Traditional MEL frameworks often focus on outputs—like the number of beneficiaries reached—while nuanced outcomes like shifting gender norms or equity are overlooked. What methodological changes are needed to integrate these complex social indicators into mainstream MEL?
A. Capturing shifts in gender norms, power relations, or equity requires moving beyond numeric outputs to methods that value complexity and context. As mentioned previously, traditional logframes rarely capture these subtler forms of change. To address this, MEL must integrate:
- Participatory and qualitative methods such as Most Significant Change (MSC), storytelling, and outcome harvesting, which bring forward lived experiences and unintended outcomes.
- Collaborative indicator development, where communities and stakeholders co-define what success looks like, ensuring that metrics reflect social realities rather than donor priorities.
- Mixed-method designs, combining quantitative tracking with qualitative sense-making to generate both rigor and depth.
By embedding these approaches, MEL can evolve from counting beneficiaries to understanding how and why social transformation takes place—making equity and gender outcomes visible and actionable.
Q. Given that many CSR funders still view MEL as a “support function,” what steps are needed to position MEL as a strategic enabler rather than an administrative requirement? How can companies balance regulatory disclosures with deeper, context-driven learning?
A. MEL will only move from the margins to the mainstream when it is seen as strategy, not paperwork. For CSR funders, this means treating MEL as core infrastructure that informs program design, adaptation, and long-term impact—not just regulatory compliance. Companies can balance disclosure needs with deeper learning by:
- Embedding evidence-driven reflection alongside numeric reporting.
- Supporting systems strengthening and organizational capacity rather than one-off data exercises.
- Valuing contextual and community insights as much as output counts.
When MEL is framed as a tool for learning and strategic clarity, CSR programmes shift from showcasing numbers to demonstrating real, sustained change.
Q. The study points to significant gaps in analytical skills, digital literacy, and contextual indicator-setting within grassroots NGOs. What models of capacity building and peer learning networks have you found most effective in strengthening MEL from the ground up?
A. Capacity building in MEL works best when it is demand-driven, not donor-driven. Rather than imposing generic trainings, starting with a capacity needs assessment helps identify specific gaps—whether in data analysis, digital literacy, or contextual indicator design—and tailor support accordingly.
Three models stand out:
a. Peer learning networks. Communities of practice and horizontal exchanges allow NGOs to troubleshoot in real time, share locally adapted tools, and normalize conversations around both successes and failures.
b. Youth and emerging leadership. Our study shows younger staff are often at the forefront of digital adoption and innovation. Investing in their leadership—through mentorship, digital upskilling, and giving them ownership of MEL processes—creates long-term institutional capacity.
c. Proactive leadership development. When organizational leaders embrace MEL as a strategic function rather than an administrative add-on, it cascades across teams. Combining leadership buy-in with technical training strengthens both culture and capability.
In short, the most effective models blend technical capacity, peer support, and leadership commitment. This ecosystem approach ensures MEL is not just a skill set but a culture of reflection and learning embedded at every level.
Q. One of the report’s key recommendations is to “decolonize MEL” by moving decision-making closer to communities. What would this shift look like in practice, and how receptive are funders and policymakers to such a transformation?
A. At its heart, decolonizing MEL is about shifting power—over what is measured, how evidence is interpreted, and whose knowledge counts. It challenges the dominance of donor-driven frameworks and places communities at the center of defining and owning their change stories.
In practice, this shift would mean:
- Engaging marginalized voices not as data sources, but as co-analysts and co-owners of impact narratives.
- Moving beyond homogeneity, recognizing the diversity within communities and applying gender-transformative and intersectional lenses to capture complex realities.
- Replacing one-size-fits-all frameworks, and instead co-creating indicators, methods, and interpretations that reflect local context and lived experience.
- Embedding accountability downwards, ensuring findings are shared back in accessible forms and communities have the power to question, validate, and use data themselves.
How receptive are funders and policymakers? The answer is mixed. Many acknowledge the need for inclusivity and equity, and these terms have become part of the mainstream vocabulary. Yet, true decolonization goes beyond rhetoric—it requires funders to re-examine their own values, missions, and practices. It demands flexibility, humility, and a willingness to let go of some control in order to maximize quality, inclusivity, and authenticity of impact.
We believe the momentum is growing. Initiatives like trust-based philanthropy, flexible funding, and participatory grantmaking show that parts of the ecosystem are ready to embrace this transformation. But for it to take root, decolonizing MEL must be seen not as a “trend” but as a fundamental principle of justice and equality in development.
Q. Post-COVID realities demand adaptive, field-ready learning systems, especially as ESG and CSR disclosures come under growing scrutiny. What is your vision for the future of MEL in India, and what role must must funder, NGOs and policy makers play in realizing this?
A. The future of MEL in India lies in building adaptive, participatory, and equity-driven systems that are rooted in community voice.Funders must invest in MEL as core infrastructure, NGOs must embed it into their organizational DNA, and policymakers must enable an enabling ecosystem through supportive frameworks.This means moving from compliance to collective learning, where evidence drives both accountability and innovation.If these actors work together, MEL can become not just a reporting tool but a strategic lever for transformative change in India’s development landscape.
