Part 13 · Monitoring and national reporting
Monitoring & Evaluation Framework
Nineteen indicators with sources and frequencies, the three-layer dashboard architecture, gate and outcome evaluation designs, and the reporting calendar.
The M&E logic
Monitoring follows the results chain the concept page establishes: inputs (funding, coordinators, platform) → activities (seats published, applications, bookings) → outputs (students placed, completing, verified) → outcomes (measured service-delivery and record-quality improvements) → impact (evaluated claims only). The discipline: baselines are set in the pilot, targets are set at gates, and no indicator is reported without its data source and frequency.
The 19-indicator framework
| ID | Type | Indicator | Definition/measure | Data source | Frequency | Baseline & targets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OUT-01 | Output | Students enrolled in service component | Count of registered students per intake | University records | Per intake | Baseline zero at start; targets set per phase |
| OUT-02 | Output | Students successfully placed | Placement confirmed + commenced (share of enrolled) | Program placement system | Per intake | Placement rate target 95%+ (guaranteed-placement rule RSK-02) |
| OUT-03 | Output | Completion rate | Students completing all service + academic requirements (share of placed) | Digital completion records | Per cohort | International reference: AmeriCorps 89% completion target (SRC-68) |
| OUT-04 | Output | Cost per completed placement | Total program cost / completed placements | Program financial system | Annual | Compare across phases; falling unit cost = scale efficiency |
| OUT-05 | Output | Supervisor coverage | Certified supervisors per 20 active students | Program HR records | Quarterly | Floor: 1:20; task-risk ratio floors per sector mapping |
| OUT-06 | Output | Grievance intake and resolution time | Median days to resolve student grievances | Grievance system | Quarterly | Resolution target 30 days |
| PRO-01 | Process | Academic performance and graduation delay | Time-to-degree of participants vs matched non-participants | University academic records | Annual | KEY INTEGRITY METRIC: program must be duration-neutral (RSK-01); matched-comparison design |
| PRO-02 | Process | Student expenses vs support | Net out-of-pocket cost distribution of participants | Student surveys | Per cohort | Must not burden low-income students (RSK-03) |
| PRO-03 | Process | Host institution satisfaction | Structured host ratings of placement usefulness | Host surveys | Per cohort | Low scores trigger host-quality review |
| PRO-04 | Process | Supervisor workload | Supervisor-reported hours per student; burnout indicators | Supervisor surveys | Per cohort | Detects ratio collapse (RSK-09) |
| PRO-05 | Process | Safety incidents | Injury, harassment, retaliation incidents per 1,000 students | Protection office + insurance claims | Quarterly | All retaliation incidents trigger review by oversight committee |
| EFF-01 | Service effectiveness | Processing times for selected public services | Median service delivery time at participating vs comparison offices | Service registers + AC-02 tracking | Semi-annual | Pre-registered service list; offices without placements as comparison group |
| EFF-02 | Service effectiveness | Records completeness and digitization | Share of target registers digitized and complete; error rates | Program QA (AC-03/AC-04) | Semi-annual | Double-entry verification |
| EFF-03 | Service effectiveness | Complaints and their resolution | GRS complaints per office; resolution rates; citizen satisfaction pulses | GRS data + citizen pulse surveys | Semi-annual | Interpretation requires care: rising complaints may reflect trust, not deterioration |
| GOV-01 | Governance outcome | Documented irregularities and verified outcomes | Number of internally flagged inconsistencies (AC-05) AND their independent verification outcomes | Program M&E + oversight committee | Annual | NEVER use allegation counts as a standalone corruption measure - report only with verification outcomes |
| GOV-02 | Governance outcome | Data quality of host statistics | Error rates in host-published aggregates over time | AC-05 consistency checks | Annual | A leading indicator of administrative discipline |
| IMP-01 | Impact (long-term) | Public service quality trend | Composite index of charter compliance across participating offices | Independent evaluation unit | Every 2 years | Attribution requires phased/matched design (Section 12 of report) |
| IMP-02 | Impact (long-term) | Civic outcomes of participants | Participant vs non-participant civic engagement trajectories | Longitudinal surveys (independent) | Every 3 years | KKN literature shows civic learning gains; Bangladesh evidence to be built |
| IMP-03 | Impact (long-term) | Graduate employability | Employment rates and time-to-first-job of participants vs matched peers | Tracer studies | Every 3 years | Secondary objective but politically important |
The national dashboard
The public dashboard publishes aggregates only — no student-level data, no sensitive government records. Public layers: participating universities and institutions; approved/published seats; seats requested/allocated/confirmed; students placed, serving, completing; awaiting-placement counts; cancellations; average placement waiting time; seat utilization; distribution by university, discipline, sector, district; programme expenditure aggregates; cost per completed placement; complaint volumes and resolution rates; feedback summaries; audit and safety indicator counts. Role-restricted layers (universities, hosts, auditors) see their own operational detail under the platform's access rules.
Evaluation designs
Independent institutions; pre-registered designs; published in full. Duration-neutrality tested against matched peer cohorts; cost against the UFM model bands.
Baseline–endline on service-delivery metrics in host offices; matched-comparison designs where randomization is infeasible; integrity indicators tracked from pilot baseline.
Five-year synthesis: quality indices, fraud-control verification by external audit, equity analysis, and the 300,000 decision memorandum.
Reporting calendar
Quarterly: public participation and quality indices (from PH-1). Per-cycle: allocation and utilization reports to the steering committee. Annually: national programme report — published, with financial aggregates and audit findings. At gates: independent evaluation reports. Every five years from PH-4: sunset review. Data-quality assurance: 10% independent re-verification of attendance samples, certificate-verification sampling, and allocation-decision replay audits — feeding the integrity indicators on the Integrity page.