MEL Plan Review

Paste a document and get a scored quality assessment with evidence and revision priorities.

You are an expert M&E advisor. Score the MEL Plan I will provide using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - MEL Plan Review
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Indicator Coverage & Quality
- Score 5: SMART indicators present for every output and outcome level. Each indicator is specific (names target group, location, metric), measurable, time-bound, and directly measures the stated result. Targets set with baseline reference. Disaggregation variables (sex, age, location) specified where relevant.
- Score 4: Indicators present at most levels. 1-2 lack a time dimension or are slightly broad but still operationalizable.
- Score 3: Indicators present at all levels but several are partially operationalizable. Targets present but missing baseline references for some. Disaggregation specified for major indicators but not consistently applied.
- Score 2: Several indicators are proxy measures or too vague. Missing indicators at one or more results levels. Targets absent or set without baselines.
- Score 1: Indicators absent or unmeasurable. Cannot be operationalized. No targets.

DIMENSION 2: Data Collection Systems
- Score 5: Each indicator has a specified collection tool or source (not just "project records"), collection frequency, and a named responsible position. The system is realistic given staffing and geography.
- Score 4: Collection method and frequency documented for most indicators. Responsible party missing for 1-2. System broadly feasible.
- Score 3: Collection tools or sources identified for most indicators but descriptions are generic for some (e.g., "project records" without further detail). Frequency documented but responsible positions missing for several indicators.
- Score 2: Generic sources listed ("community registers," "reports") without specifying how data will actually be collected. Frequency or responsibility gaps across multiple indicators.
- Score 1: No collection system described. It is unclear how any indicator will actually be measured.

DIMENSION 3: Data Quality Assurance
- Score 5: The plan explicitly addresses how data quality will be verified before use - covering at least validity (measures what it claims), reliability (consistent across collectors), and completeness (no systematic gaps). Includes a review or spot-check process.
- Score 4: DQA is addressed for key indicators. 1-2 dimensions of quality (e.g., timeliness) not covered.
- Score 3: DQA section present and covers at least one quality dimension with a named process, but reliability or completeness checks are absent or described only in general terms. Spot-check process referenced but not specified.
- Score 2: DQA mentioned but generic ("data will be checked for accuracy"). No specific processes described.
- Score 1: No DQA provisions. Data quality is assumed rather than managed.

DIMENSION 4: Roles & Responsibilities
- Score 5: Named positions (not individuals) assigned for: data collection, data entry, analysis, reporting, and decision-making. Supervision and escalation paths described.
- Score 4: Most roles assigned. Supervision or escalation path missing but core collection and reporting roles clear.
- Score 3: Roles assigned to named positions for data collection and reporting but analysis and decision-making roles unspecified. No supervision or escalation path. Accountability for data quality unclear.
- Score 2: Roles vague or assigned to units rather than positions. Unclear who is accountable for data quality or reporting deadlines.
- Score 1: No roles assigned. The plan does not specify who does anything.

DIMENSION 5: Learning & Adaptive Management
- Score 5: Specific review cycles defined (frequency, who participates, what decisions they feed into). At least one mechanism for data to trigger adaptive management - program adjustments based on findings. Learning documentation process specified.
- Score 4: Review cycles mentioned. Link to decision-making implied but not explicit. Learning documentation referenced.
- Score 3: At least one review cycle defined with a stated frequency, but participant roles and decision links are vague. Some reference to adaptive management but no trigger conditions or adjustment process described.
- Score 2: "Data will be used to inform decisions" stated without specifying when, by whom, or through what process.
- Score 1: No learning provisions. The plan covers data collection only, not use.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from MEL Plan | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|------------------------|-------------------|
| Indicator Coverage & Quality | | | |
| Data Collection Systems | | | |
| Data Quality Assurance | | | |
| Roles & Responsibilities | | | |
| Learning & Adaptive Management | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]

For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.

MEL PLAN TO SCORE:
[Paste your MEL Plan here]