Redesign of our MEL services and a call to action.

By Nicoll Peracha 🔸, Jamie__Spurgeon @ 2026-08-06T08:39 (+12)

How we used a needs assessment and a learning review to shape our 2026 service redesign.

Summary 

A needs assessment (40 orgs) and a learning review of our 2025 short-term support (30 engagements) showed animal advocacy organizations want both immediate insights and deeper, functional MEL systems, but lack time, skills, and funding to build the latter. Our old service model often ran long without reaching data collection or analysis. We therefore redesigned our service portfolio, and we're asking organizations and funders to build in MEL capacity (aiming for a 10% provision) to make it stick.

The Mission Motor (TMM) supports farmed and wild animal advocacy organizations in developing and implementing Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) systems. After two years of delivery, we took a deliberate strategic pause in early 2026 to check whether our service model was actually addressing the movement's needs.

The studies
Two studies fed the March 2026 redesign of our services: a MEL Needs Assessment Survey of 40 organizations (March 2026) on the state of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) practice and support needs across the movement, and a Short-Term Support (STS) Learning Review of 30 support engagements across 28 organizations (October 2024 to October 2025) on perceptions of what our primary 2025 service actually achieved.

Findings indicated that organizations want both immediate insights and deeper, functional MEL systems. While our old model excelled at delivering early MEL components, it wasn't addressing the full scope of identified MEL system needs.

Study limitations: The needs assessment used a convenience sample via our networks; it likely overrepresents MEL-engaged organizations, and practice is self-reported. The STS review draws on perception data from MEL advisors (23 responses) and staff of supported organizations (27 responses, ~80% org coverage); progress is self-reported, not independently verified. 12 of 30 engagements were ongoing at point of assessment.

What the needs assessment found

1. Organizations report not generating much data. 
   MEL practice maturity, as a % of maximum score
   Design 55%, Monitoring 31%, Evaluation and learning 30%. Overall average is 38% of maximum, and only 20% have a formal MEL plan.
2. MEL is valued, but often under-resourced. 
   Barriers organizations report: staff time (60%), technical skills (57%), little lead time on opportunities (48%), doubt MEL's value (10%).
3. Demand is high; resource allocation to MEL is low. 
   75% of organizations say improving MEL is important or urgent, but only 18% would definitely pay for it. 77% say funders rarely or never fund MEL (excl. n/a results).
4. Funder requirements that organizations find most challenging are cost-effectiveness, number of animals reached, and long-term impact.
   Among organizations asked for each requirement (n=12–23) cost-effectiveness (66% find somewhat or very challenging), number of animals reached (62%), long-term impact (56%).

What the STS learning review found

1. Theory of Change is cited as the most significant change. 
   Change most attributed to TMM support, thematically coded Theory of change, strategy, logic (56%), Monitoring framework or system (23%), Building staff MEL skills (19%), Tools or impact measurement (15%). (Shares exceed 100% as some organizations named more than one advancement.)
2. Partners are confident it was worth the investment, 
   All partners, n=27 
   Very confident (70%), Moderately confident (15%), Slightly confident (15%), Not at all (0%)
   and continue to use the work delivered afterwards. 
   Concluded partners, n=14 
   Fully (6 of 14), Partially (7 of 14), Too soon to tell (1 of 14).
3. Support ran longer than the intended 2-3 months. 
   Engagement length in months (n=30)
   The largest cluster (9 engagements) fell in the 4–5 month range, with several running 8+ months. Median 4.6 months, roughly double the planned length.
4. We often didn't reach downstream MEL components. 
   Components completed among support engagements (n=30) Theory of change (73%), Assumptions / MEL questions (73%), MEL framework (60%), Data collection instrument (37%), Data analysis (10%).

What we changed

Each finding maps to a design decision in the new service portfolio. Here are five of the clearest examples:

The new portfolio at a glance

Different organizations enter at different points, so the portfolio spans low-touch to high-touch — a few hours of initial guidance to several-month hands-on engagements — suited to different levels of MEL maturity:

• 1-to-Many MEL Content, Ask an Advisor, and MEL System Assessment at the low-touch end
• Design Support and Evaluation Support in the middle
• MEL System Support at the high-touch end.

Full service descriptions are on our website.

What this means for organizations

Wherever you are starting, there is an entry point for you. We tailor our service suggestions to the needs and starting point of the organization requesting support, whatever those are. To make this accessible, all of our support is free of charge, but to make the most of it, you as an organization need some MEL capacity in your team.

We would like to see funding requests for program work include a 10% MEL provision.

There is a lot we can still do without this funding, but a fully functioning MEL system needs allocated resources.

What this means for funders

The MEL funding gap is structural. Many organizations have a clear need for better Program Design and MEL, but do not yet have the resources to realise this themselves, so funders need to invest in organizations' capacity to do this work.

We would like to see 10% of grant funding for program work designated for MEL.

There are other ways in. Fund or commission evaluations of your grantees, including through our Evaluation Support service. And talk to us about what suitable MEL evidence looks like before setting reporting requirements; funders frequently ask for exactly the metrics organizations are least equipped to produce.

This document is itself an example of the practice we promote: gathering evidence and acting on it to improve.

Get in touch

If you're an organization figuring out where to start with MEL, or a funder thinking through how to structure MEL expectations or funding, we'd like to hear from you. Reach out to us at support@themissionmotor.org or find us at the CARE Conference in September.

Full reports:

• MEL Needs Assessment Survey: Findings Report (March 2026)
• Short-Term Support Learning Review: Findings Report (May 2026)
• Service overview: themissionmotor.org