CARE International

Project Standards Measurement

Instrument

PSMI

Country Name of Project:

_______________________________________________

Person filling out form (and responsible for scoring):

Other respondents (participants in the discussion):

_______________________________________________
Date: ________________________________________________

_______________________________________________

Project status: a) proposal approval; b) self-evaluation; c) mid-term evaluation;

d) final evaluation

Introduction to the CI Project Standards: 1

These CARE Project Standards apply to all CARE programming
(including emergencies, rehabilitation and development) and
all forms of interventions (direct service delivery, working with
or through partners, and policy advocacy).
These standards, as well as accompanying guidelines, should be used
to guide the work of project designers; as a checklist for approval of
project proposals; as a tool for periodic project self-appraisal; and as a
part of project evaluation. The emphasis should not be only on
enforcement but also on the strengthening of capacity to be able to
meet these standards for programme quality. At the time of initial
approval, if a project can not meet one or more standards, allow for
explanation of why, and what will be done about it. More than a
passed/failed checklist, these call for a description of how well a
project meets each standard.
Introduction to the CI Project Standards Measurement
Instrument (PSMI):
To assist with measuring the degree of compliance with these
standards (as called for in the introduction above), a series of more

specific questions are proposed for each standard. These are intended
to help the respondents (project staff using this PSMI to self-evaluate
their own project, or senior managers to judge the compliance of a
project with these standards) to consider the meaning of each
standard, and to help in determining how well a project currently
meets the standard. Though a rating scale is included for each
standard, what may be more valuable is to document the evidence by
citing or making reference to project documents (e.g. proposal,
logframe, detailed implementation plan, M&E plan, etc.) and to
comment on what the project is or will be doing to more adequately
meet a particular standard.
The quantitative rating provides a measurement along a scale from
does not meet at all to adequately to exemplifies a particular
standard. These can help determine whether or not a project meets a
standard well enough for approval at time of initial design. (Note: the
minimum threshold levels will probably be different for immediate
emergency projects, longer-term emergency and rehabilitation
projects, and long-term development projects.) These scaled indicators
can also help measure progress by a project towards more fully
meeting each standard as it matures over time. Remember: more than
just giving a numerical rating, it would be helpful to write a comment
on why and in what way a project does or does not meet a particular
standard.
The pattern used in this PSMI for each standard will be as follows:
a) The Project Standard
b) The descriptive paragraph(s)
c) One or more leading questions, including requests to cite or make
reference to where this topic is addressed within the project
documents.
o Space (within the Word template) for entering the
response.
d) A scaled rating giving an estimated quantification of how well this
standard is currently met, based on the above considerations (circle,
or, in the Word template, delete all except the chosen score).
Rating score for Standard #x: 1 2 3 4 5
e) Request for comments on a) why the project currently may not fully
meet this standard, and/or b) what is planned to more adequately
meet it in the future.
o Comment:

The scaled ratings should be interpreted as follows:

1 = This standard is not met, or at least it would be a stretch to say
that this project even barely meets this standard at this time. L
2 = Probably meets this standard, under the circumstances, but fairly
minimally.
3 = Meets this standard reasonably well. K
4 = We feel fairly confident that this standard is met quite well, at
least as well as could be expected of most projects.
5 = Any objective observer should be able to agree that this project
exemplifies this standard! J
Each CARE project2 should:
1. be consistent with the CARE International Vision and
Mission, Programming Principles and Values.
Projects and programmes should fit comfortably within the spirit and
content of the CARE International (CI) Vision and Mission statements. In
other words, CARE projects should show how they will contribute,
ultimately, towards lasting improvements in human well-being, hope,
tolerance, social justice, reduction in poverty, and enhanced dignity
and security of people. They should be guided by CI Programming
Principles that synthesize and integrate with central elements of
CAREs evolving programme approaches, including livelihoods, basic
rights, gender and diversity, partnerships and civil society.
1. Can it be reasonably shown that this project contributes
towards lasting improvements in human well-being, hope,
tolerance, social justice, reduction in poverty, and/or
enhanced dignity and security of people? Describe the
evidence in the project proposal.
o

Response:

2. (In other words): Can it be demonstrated that the goal of

this project contributes to one or more of the UN
Millennium Goals? If so, which ones?
o

Response:

3. In consideration of the above questions, how consistent is

this project with the CI vision, mission, values and
programming principles? Rate on a scale of 1-5.
Rating score for Standard #1: 1 2 3 4 - 5
4. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

2. be clearly linked to a Country Office strategy and/or long

term programme goals.
Projects should not be isolated, but clearly embedded in long term
multi-project programmes and strategic frameworks that address the
underlying conditions and root causes of poverty and social injustice.
Doing so provides a larger framework in which project decisions are
made, but does not preclude strategic innovation and experimentation.
CARE's strategies should be clearly linked to the development efforts
of others (e.g. government, multilaterals, NGOs).
1. If there is a CO strategy (LRSP), how does the project plan
shown how this project fits within and contributes to the
priorities in that strategy?
o

Response:

2. If there is a programme strategy covering the area or

target population addressed by this project, is it clear how
well this project fits within and contributes to that
programme strategy? Cite or make reference to where this
is addressed in the logframe or other project document.
o

Response:

3. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?

Rating score for Standard #2: 1 2 3 4 - 5

4. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

3. ensure the active participation and influence of

stakeholders in its analysis, design, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation processes.
Every project should be explicit about its process of participation and
consultation, aiming for openness and transparency. Stakeholders
will be understood to include target communities, partner
organizations, governments, and CARE staff. The interventions of the
various actors should be coordinated and reinforcing and, individually
and together, work together to achieve sustainable impact.
1. How much were (or are) representatives of the target
population involved in the design, implementation,
monitoring and/or evaluation of this project? Describe that
involvement and level of influence (or make reference to
project documents that describe such participation).
o

Response:

2. How well do you think this standard has been met with
regard to participation of the target population?
Rating score for Standard #3-a: 1 2 3 4 - 5
3. How much and in what ways were (or are) representatives
of partner organizations or other stakeholders involved
in the design, implementation, monitoring and/or
evaluation of this project? Describe or cite references in
project documents.
o

Response:

4. How well do you think this standard has been met with
regard to partner organizations?
Rating score for Standard #3-b: 1 2 3 4 - 5
5. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should (with
regard to target population and/or partner organizations),
and/or what will be done to more adequately meet the
standard in the future.
o

Comment:

4. have a design that is based on a holistic analysis of the

needs and rights of the target population and the underlying
causes of their conditions of poverty and social injustice. It
should also examine the opportunities and risks inherent in
the potential interventions.
The diagnostic assessment and subsequent analysis should be based
upon a clear frame of reference and include an analysis of problems
and their causes from a range of perspectives including institutional as
well as opportunity analysis. Social analyses could examine how needs
and rights are related to gender, social class, ethnicity, religion, etc.
The analysis should lead to an understanding of institutional capacity,
power relationships, and the exercise of rights and responsibilities, as
well as household level conditions.
1. Was the design of this project based on the findings of a
diagnostic assessment of the problems and opportunities
of the target population? If so, briefly describe the scope of
that diagnostic assessment.
o

Response:

2. If so, how holistic was the diagnostic assessment? Did it

include perspectives of more than one sector?

Response:

3. How well did the diagnostic assessment look into

underlying causes of the identified problem(s)? Cite
references in the project documents that describe those
underlying causes and how the project will address them.
o

Response:

4. Did the diagnostic assessment examine needs and rights

related to gender, social class, ethnicity, religion, etc? If so,
cite project documentation that describes the findings and
recommendations of such analysis.
o

Response:

5. Did the diagnostic assessment include analyses of

institutions that have responsibilities related to the target
population, and the strengths and weaknesses of those
institutions (as potential partners)? Cite references in the
project documents.
o

Response:

6. Did the project design include examinations of the

potential risks inherent in the choices of interventions?
Cite references.
o

Response:

7. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?
Rating score for Standard #4: 1 2 3 4 - 5

8. Please add a comment on why this project may not

currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

5. use a logical framework3 that explains how the project will

contribute to an ultimate impact upon the lives of members of
a defined target population.
The project plan should be clearly summarized in a logical framework
that shows how proposed interventions and anticipated outputs will
result in defined effects and impact. It should specify level of
intervention (household, community, institutional, societal) and how
the project will ultimately contribute to sustainable impact for a
specific target population. It should identify key assumptions and
provide validation for its central hypothesis.
1. Has the project design been summarized in the form of a
logframe (logic model)? If so, attach a copy.
o

Response:

2. Does the logic model include goals, objectives, and

indicators related to activities, outputs, effects and
impact? (Shown on logic model.)
o

Response:

3. Is there a clear logical linkage and cause-effect

relationship among these levels? (Examination of logic
model.)
o

Response:

4. Is it clear whether the interventions address households,

communities, institutions or society, or a combination of
these levels? (Examination of logic model.)

Response:

5. Is it clear who the ultimate beneficiaries are, and what the

intended impact will be? Cite the project final goal (or
wherever the beneficiaries are specifically described).
o

Response:

6. Have assumptions (external factors critical to the

achievement of outcomes but not within direct control of
the project itself) been clearly identified? (Examination of
logic model.)
o

Response:

7. Is the project hypothesis (that outputs will lead to effects

and desired impact) clearly stated and verified? Make
reference to documentation.
o

Response:

8. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?
Rating score for Standard #5: 1 2 3 4 - 5
9. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

6. set a significant, yet achievable and measurable final goal.

A project final goal must be achievable and measurable during the life
of the project. This calls for project designers to clearly define what the
project will be held accountable for achieving. It should be practical
and do-able, yet be at the outcome level (intermediary impact or at
least effect) rather than output level.
A project final goal must also be clearly and explicitly linked to, and
significantly contribute to, higher level programme or strategic goals.
Programme goals should address underlying causes of poverty and
social injustice, but their impact equitable and durable
improvements in human wellbeing and social justice should be
ultimately manifest at the household or individual level.
1. What is the final goal of this project? (It should have been
cited in the logframe, see Standard #5 above.) Is it
significant, in that it addresses desired improvements in
the lives of real people? Can it be said to address at least
intermediary impact level?
o

Response:

2. Is the final goal achievable and measurable during the life

of the project? (This should be evident from the objectively
verifiable indicators in the logframe and plans for
measuring them, as in the M&E plan.)
o

Response:

3. What higher (program) impact goal does this project

contribute to? Cite.
o

Response:

4. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?
Rating score for Standard #6: 1 2 3 4 - 5
5. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or

what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in

the future.
o

Comment:

7. be technically, environmentally, and socially appropriate.

Interventions should be based upon current best practice and
on an understanding of the social context and the needs,
rights and responsibilities of the stakeholders.
The project must be designed in a way that is likely to make a
significant and positive difference, with minimal undesired social or
environmental consequences. Interventions must make reference to
technical or sectoral experience or standards, developed by CARE or
others, to demonstrate the viability of their approach. Environmental
analysis could include assessment of current status, analysis of
potential impact, and regional environmental issues. These may
require technical appraisal by those with expertise in the relevant
professions.
1. Does the design of this project conform to current best
practice guidelines for the relevant sector(s)? If so, what
explicit reference has been made to such guidelines, or to
lessons learned from evaluations of previous projects or
research?
o

Response:

2. How well do you think this project meets sectoral

technical current best practice guidelines?
Rating score for Standard #7-a: 1 2 3 4 - 5
3. Has there been an assessment of the potential impact of
this project on the environment? Make reference to
documentation.
o

Response:

4. How well do you think this project has considered

environmental impact?
Rating score for Standard #7-b: 1 2 3 4 - 5
5. Did the diagnosis and design analyze and consider the
social context, including the needs and rights of the
intended beneficiaries and responsibilities of duty bearers?
Cite reference.
o

Response:

6. How well do you think this project has considered human

rights and other social impact?
Rating score for Standard #7-c: 1 2 3 4 - 5
7. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

8. indicate the appropriateness of project costs, in light of the

selected project strategies and expected outputs and
outcomes.
Programme designers must be able to defend the budget of a
project relative to its outputs, scale and anticipated impact. Also,
the M&E plan should include methods for measuring cost
effectiveness, i.e. to demonstrate that the costs of project
interventions are reasonable and commensurate with the outputs
and outcomes achieved.
8. Has any form of cost-effectiveness assessment been
made, to estimate the relationship between the proposed
budget and the intended outcomes (benefits)? (Include
both the amount of planned change and the scale, i.e. how
many people are likely to benefit, in what way?) If so,

briefly describe or make reference to the results of such an

assessment.
o

Response:

8. Has there been a comparison between the cost and

planned outputs of this project to similar projects, or
alternative interventions? Describe or cite reference in
project documents.
o

Response:

3. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?
Rating score for Standard #8: 1 2 3 4 - 5
4. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

9. develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation plan

and system based on the logical framework that ensures the
collection of baseline, monitoring, and final evaluation data,
and anticipates how the information will be used for decision
making; with a budget that includes adequate amounts for
implementing the monitoring and evaluation plan.
M&E plans should provide sufficient detail to clearly identify
evaluation design, sources of data, means of measurement,
schedule for measurement, data processing and analysis,
dissemination of information to and utilization by key
stakeholders, and responsibilities for each of these processes.
Sufficient budget should be allocated for designated tasks, and
planning should ensure that CARE staff and partners have the

capacity required for their implementation. Monitoring

information should be useful and timely to promote reflective
practice, for management decision-making, and for adapting
project approaches and strategies. M&E plans should incorporate
methods to measure risks and assumptions and to track
unintended effects.
1. Is there a life-of-project M&E plan? How well does it include
each of the components listed, i.e. evaluation design,
sources of data, means of measurement, schedule for
measurement, data processing and analysis, dissemination
of information to and utilization by key stakeholders, and
responsibilities for each of these processes?
o

Response:

2. How much is earmarked in the budget for M&E events and

systems? Will this be sufficient to carry out what is called
for in the M&E plan?
o

Response:

3. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?
Rating score for Standard #9: 1 2 3 4 - 5
4. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

10. establish a baseline for measuring change in

indicators of impact and effect, by conducting a study or
survey prior to implementation of project activities.
There needs to be a distinction between a diagnostic assessment

and a baseline study. The former gathers a little information

about many conditions and is used to inform project design. A
baseline study, on the other hand, should focus on measuring
indicators of effect and impact with a level of rigor required for a
before-and-after comparison with evaluation. Baseline studies
can use qualitative as well as quantitative data, as long as they
describe the initial situation with sufficient precision to be able to
clearly measure changes over the life of the project.
1. Is there a plan to measure impact and effect-level
indicators at the beginning of the project, in such a way
that the baseline data will be comparable with the final
evaluation? Make reference to the plan for the baseline
study.
o

Response:

2. (If the project is already underway:) Was the baseline

study conducted on time (i.e. just before interventions
were initiated)? Have the findings been used to refine the
project plans and tighten up the project M&E system? Cite
documentation.
o

Response:

3. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?
Rating score for Standard #10: 1 2 3 4 - 5
4. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

11. use indicators that are relevant, measurable, verifiable

and reliable.

Indicators should be capable of yielding data that can be

disaggregated to the individual level according to criteria that reveal
vulnerabilities, such as gender, age and social class. Both qualitative
and quantitative measures are acceptable as long as they can illustrate
discernible and significant change. For indicators to be reliable denotes
that they are robust and will be useful and credible throughout the life
of the project. CARE should draw upon the international development
communitys great wealth of experience with indicators.
The following questions should be addressed after
examining the logframe and/or M&E plan:
1. Do the indicators in the logframe / M&E plan represent the
appropriate level (e.g. impact indicators at final goal
level)?
o

Response:

2. Are the indicators really objectively verifiable (i.e.

unambiguous and precise in what needs to be measured or
described)?
o

Response:

3. Can the indicators be disaggregated to distinguish changes

among specific vulnerable sub-groups in the community
(rather than simply the average of the whole population)?
o

Response:

4. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?
Rating score for Standard #11: 1 2 3 4 - 5
5. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

12. employ a balance of evaluation methodologies, assure an

appropriate level of rigor, and adhere to recognized ethical
standards.
Evaluation should be incorporated as standard practice as a basis for
accountability and for documented, institutionalized learning. Although
various forms of evaluation should be planned, such as internal or
external, formative (mid-term) or summative (final) or even ex post (to
evaluate sustainability), the minimum is that there should be at least a
final evaluation that summarizes the achievements and lessons
learned by the project.
Diagnostic assessments, baseline studies, monitoring, and evaluations
should utilize a balance of methodological approaches to ensure
triangulation, a richness of data, and mutual modifications. Evaluations
should assure appropriate levels of rigor and precision in their designs
and selection of methodologies. Informant confidentiality should be
protected. Each evaluation event should draw upon previous ones and
anticipate subsequent events. Evaluation processes must be
documented and carefully archived, allowing subsequent project
phases to replicate methods and draw upon comparative data.
The following questions should be answered after
examination of the M&E plan:
1. Does the M&E plan contain an evaluation plan that
includes key questions to be answered, evaluation design
(with or without baseline, with or without comparison
group), and schedule for evaluation(s)? Cite.
o

Response:

2. Does the evaluation plan call for an appropriate mix of

methodologies? What are they? Cite.
o

Response:

3. Is the evaluation plan based on a level of rigor appropriate

to the required sophistication and precision required for
measuring the achievements of this project? Is this even
addressed in the plan?

Response:

4. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?
Rating score for Standard #12: 1 2 3 4 - 5
5. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

13. be informed by and contribute to ongoing learning within

and outside CARE.
It is critical that relevant research and previous project evaluations
inform the initial proposal preparation stage. More than that, learning
should also apply throughout the life of a project and beyond. The
lessons learned from a project should be adequately documented for
utilization in the design of other projects. Project management should
support the documentation of project processes, including re-designs.
Reflective practice, such as the regular use of monitoring data, should
be built into every project. Learning should be an organization-wide
priority supported by frequent meta-evaluations.
1. Cite or make reference to evidence in project documents
(design / proposal) that lessons learned from evaluations
of previous similar projects and/or relevant research was
incorporated in the plans for this project.
o

Response:

2. (If a new proposal:) Are there plans for documenting

lessons learned during the life of the project? (If
implementation is underway:) Have project processes,
especially any changes in project design, been
documented (e.g. included in annual reports or formative
evaluations)?

Response:

3. Considering the above, how well do you think this standard

has been met?
Rating score for Standard #13: 1 2 3 4 - 5
4. Please add a comment on why this project may not
currently meet this standard as well as it should, and/or
what will be done to more adequately meet the standard in
the future.
o

Comment:

Original draft developed by CI Design, Monitoring & Evaluation Advisory Committee (DMEAC) in Atlanta
10/99; this revised version based on recommendations by IEI-II workshop participants in Wood
Norton, UK, 31 August 2001 and follow-up communications. Final version approved by CI
Programme Working Group (PWG) 5 April 2002 for recommendation to the CI Board in May.
2

These standards refer specifically to CARE projects (whether implemented directly or through partners).
However, where there are specific longer-term programme plans these standards should apply to them as
well.
3

This should not be taken literally to mean and be restricted to the classical 4X4 LogFrame matrix; rather
more broadly interpreted to refer to logic model a summary graphical or matrix depiction of the logic of
the project design.