Daily Covers Served · 28 Days
28 days. One metric. One turn.
The turn was clear in Week 3.
Week 4 was already too late.
Read the turn. Not the crash.
67Mean
3Signal pts
↓ 44%MA drop
Metriq.OneDoes it matter? — Measure it‼️
Demo Stack · NGO Programme
Running a Community Programme — and Showing It Is Actually Working
A plain language deployment guide for an NGO or community programme. Funders do not need a story. They need evidence. These 27 indicators give you that evidence — collected on the ground, without technology, by the people doing the work.
The Idea
Most community programmes that lose funding do not lose it because the work stopped being needed. They lose it because they could not show — with traceable evidence — that the work was being done and that it was making a difference. A programme that can demonstrate its results in plain numbers is a programme that keeps its funding and earns more.
1
Funding arrives and is allocated correctlyEvery amount recorded. Every allocation traceable to a programme activity. Expenditure within agreed parameters.
2
Programme activities are delivered as committedWhat was promised to the funder or community is what is actually delivered — on time, to the right people.
3
Beneficiaries are reached and engagedThe people the programme was designed to serve are actually participating — not just counted on a list.
4
Evidence of change is collected at the point it happensNot reconstructed at reporting time. Recorded by the person closest to it on the day it occurs.
5
The report writes itself from the evidenceBecause the evidence was collected all along. No scramble at deadline. No reconstruction. No narrative to fill the gaps where data should be.
A programme that cannot show what it did, who it reached, and what changed is a programme that depends entirely on the goodwill of its funder. Goodwill is not a strategy. Evidence is. These indicators build the evidence while the work is happening — not after.
MCA — Context (Fill in for your programme)
Fill in this section once at the start of each programme cycle. Do not use geographic names or the names of specific funders or organisations.
| What the programme does | Delivers a defined set of activities to a defined beneficiary group, funded by one or more external sources, with an obligation to report on results. |
| Who is involved | Field staff or volunteers who deliver activities and collect evidence. A programme coordinator who manages schedules, records, and reporting. A governing body or board that oversees compliance and strategy. Beneficiaries who participate. Funders who provide the resources. |
| What conditions it operates in | Geographic accessibility, connectivity, seasonal factors affecting beneficiary participation, government regulations, security conditions if relevant. |
| What resources it has | Confirmed funding for this cycle, staff or volunteer capacity, equipment and materials for delivery, transport and communication available. |
| What has gone wrong before | Activities delivered but not documented. Beneficiaries counted but not verified. Expenditure not traceable to activities. Reports compiled from memory rather than records. Funding not renewed because results could not be demonstrated. |
| The main challenge right now | State as an observable condition you can see and count. |
| What the programme is working toward | A measurable improvement condition connected to one of the three survival questions below. |
The Stack — 3 CSI · 9 Modules · 27 PI · 3 CRI
DESIGNATION BRIDGE
Every activity committed to the funder is delivered to the right people, documented at the point it happens, and traceable in a report that any independent reviewer can verify.
PI
What to count
How to collect it
CSI-1
Stability
Is the programme financially sound — funding arriving, costs within budget, expenditure traceable?
A programme that spends faster than funding arrives, cannot trace expenditure to activities, or has no reserve for delays is permanently vulnerable. Financial stability is the foundation that makes everything else possible.
MOD-1.1
Funding Coverage
Is confirmed funding sufficient to complete the programme cycle?
PI-1.1.1
Confirmed funding received to date vs. total committed for this cycle — what percentage is in hand?
Finance record — funding received logged by date and source
PI-1.1.2
Expenditure to date vs. budget allocated to date — are we spending within the planned rate?
Budget tracking sheet — actual spend compared to planned spend each period
PI-1.1.3
Number of weeks the programme could continue at current spending rate if no new funding arrived
Coordinator calculation — cash reserve divided by average weekly programme cost
MOD-1.2
Expenditure Compliance
Is spending traceable and within agreed parameters?
PI-1.2.1
Number of expenditure items this period that cannot be traced to a specific programme activity
Finance record — every expenditure item coded to an activity at point of payment
PI-1.2.2
Number of budget line items this period where actual spend exceeded allocated budget by more than 10%
Budget tracking sheet — variances identified and flagged each period
PI-1.2.3
Number of financial records requested by the coordinator or board this period that could not be produced
Finance record — requests logged and whether documents were provided
MOD-1.3
Reporting Compliance
Are reports being submitted on time with traceable evidence?
PI-1.3.1
Number of funder reporting deadlines met on time this cycle vs. total required
Reporting calendar — submission date recorded against deadline for each report
PI-1.3.2
Number of claims or results in the last report that were supported by a traceable evidence document
Report evidence file — each claim linked to a source document reference
PI-1.3.3
Number of queries or clarification requests received from funders about the last report
Correspondence log — funder queries recorded on the day received
CRI-1
Is the programme financially stable — funding in hand, spending traceable, and reports submitted with evidence that any reviewer can verify?
CSI-2
Safety
Can the programme keep delivering if a staff member leaves, access is disrupted, or a funder delays?
Programmes that depend on one person, one funder, or one route to beneficiaries have no protection against the disruptions that are inevitable in field conditions. Safety is built before the disruption happens — not after.
MOD-2.1
Programme Delivery
Are activities being delivered as committed?
PI-2.1.1
Number of planned activities delivered this period vs. number committed to the funder for this period
Activity log — each activity recorded on the day it is delivered with date and participant count
PI-2.1.2
Number of activities cancelled or postponed this period and the reason for each
Activity log — cancellation date and reason recorded on the day
PI-2.1.3
Number of beneficiaries reached this period vs. number committed to in the funder agreement
Beneficiary register — verified attendance recorded per activity
MOD-2.2
Staff and Volunteer Retention
Are the people delivering the programme still there and able to perform?
PI-2.2.1
Number of staff or volunteers who left the programme this period vs. total at start of period
Staff register — departures recorded on the day with reason
PI-2.2.2
Number of key functions that have only one person trained to perform them
Coordinator record — single-point-of-failure functions identified and listed
PI-2.2.3
Number of activities this period where delivery quality was affected by staff shortage or absence
Activity log — quality-affected activities noted with cause
MOD-2.3
Access and Reach
Can the programme reach its beneficiaries when conditions are difficult?
PI-2.3.1
Number of planned beneficiary contacts this period that could not happen due to access or connectivity problems
Activity log — missed contacts recorded with reason
PI-2.3.2
Number of alternative routes or methods available to reach beneficiaries if the primary access is disrupted
Coordinator record — alternative access methods identified and confirmed
PI-2.3.3
Number of beneficiaries who could not be reached at all this period — not just delayed, but entirely missed
Beneficiary register — unreached individuals flagged and reason recorded
CRI-2
Can the programme absorb a disruption — a departure, an access problem, a funder delay — and keep reaching its beneficiaries?
CSI-3
Continuity
Do funders still trust the programme — and does the community it serves still want it to continue?
A programme that loses community trust loses its ability to reach beneficiaries. A programme that loses funder trust loses its resources. Both must be earned continuously — through evidence, through responsive governance, and through visible accountability.
MOD-3.1
Funder Trust and Renewal
Are funders satisfied and likely to continue?
PI-3.1.1
Number of funders who renewed or extended their commitment this cycle vs. number whose funding ended
Funding register — renewal decisions recorded with date and outcome
PI-3.1.2
Number of funder visits or review meetings this period where the programme received a written positive assessment
Visit register — funder visits logged with date and outcome
PI-3.1.3
Number of conditions or corrective actions required by funders following the last review
Funder correspondence — conditions recorded on receipt and tracked to resolution
MOD-3.2
Community Trust and Engagement
Is the community choosing to participate and advocate for the programme?
PI-3.2.1
Number of community members who participated this period vs. number who participated last period — trend up or down?
Beneficiary register — participation counted and compared period to period
PI-3.2.2
Number of community feedback items collected this period that were acted upon vs. total received
Feedback log — items recorded with action taken and date
PI-3.2.3
Number of community members or leaders who publicly supported or recommended the programme this period
Coordinator record — endorsements noted when received
MOD-3.3
Governance and Accountability
Is the programme being run the way it was designed and agreed to be run?
PI-3.3.1
Number of governance meetings held on schedule this period vs. number required by the programme charter
Meeting register — date held and attendance recorded each meeting
PI-3.3.2
Number of board or governance decisions this period that have been implemented vs. total decisions made
Decision register — implementation status tracked per decision
PI-3.3.3
Number of complaints from beneficiaries or community members that were resolved within the agreed timeframe
Complaints log — complaint date, resolution date, and outcome recorded
CRI-3
Do funders still trust the programme enough to renew it — and does the community still choose to participate?
When You Present This — What to Say
1
Funders do not need a story. They need evidence.
A report full of impact narratives and photographs tells a funder what you want them to believe. A report built on traceable indicators tells them what actually happened. The second kind of report is the one that gets renewed.
2
Evidence collected at the time is worth ten times evidence reconstructed later.
When a field worker records what happened on the day it happened — with a date, a name, and a signature — that record is credible. When the same information is assembled from memory at report time, it is not. This system builds the report while the work is happening.
3
These numbers protect the programme staff.
When an activity was cancelled because the road flooded, the environmental cause is recorded. When a beneficiary could not be reached, the access problem is documented. The record shows what happened — without placing blame on the person who was trying to deliver.
4
Community trust is as important as funder trust.
A programme the community does not believe in will eventually have no beneficiaries to report. Community engagement indicators are not soft measures — they are early warning signals for programme failure.
5
All of this works without electricity or internet.
Paper registers, attendance sheets, feedback cards, and a decision log. That is the whole system. The person closest to the evidence collects it. The coordinator aggregates it. The report follows naturally.