The logical framework is often the first page a donor's reviewer really looks at. Within a few minutes, they judge whether the project has been thought through or merely described. Here are the seven mistakes we come across most often when reviewing health NGO proposals, and how to fix them.
1. Confusing activities with results
"Train 120 community health volunteers" is an activity, not a result. The result is the change the training is meant to bring about.
| Avoid | Prefer |
|---|---|
| 120 volunteers trained in community IMCI | Febrile children under 5 in the targeted health areas are managed according to protocol within 24 hours |
Simple test: if the statement starts with an action verb describing what the team does (train, distribute, organise), it is probably an activity.
2. An overall objective out of reach
"Reduce maternal mortality in the DRC" cannot be attributed to an 18-month project in two health zones. The overall objective (goal) should be a plausible contribution, and the specific objective (outcome) a change that the project can genuinely achieve and measure within its lifetime.
3. Indicators with no baseline or target
An indicator without a starting value cannot measure progress. If the baseline does not exist yet, say so and plan to measure it within the first three months (baseline study or extraction of DHIS2 data), then adjust the target accordingly.
4. Indicators that cannot be collected
Each indicator needs a realistic means of verification. "Beneficiary satisfaction rate" implies a survey: is it budgeted? Who will conduct it? How often? A few well-measured indicators are better than a long list that cannot be reported on.
5. Percentages with no numerator or denominator
"80% of pregnant women": 80% of whom? All pregnant women in the area, or those seen at antenatal care? Define the numerator and denominator in an indicator reference sheet. This is also what prevents disputes at the time of the final evaluation.
6. Missing or decorative assumptions
"The security situation remains stable" is useful only if you explain what you will do if it deteriorates. Good assumptions concern factors outside your control that nonetheless determine whether one level leads to the next: availability of supplies and commodities, presence of staff, buy-in from health authorities.
7. A logframe disconnected from the budget and the MEAL plan
Every activity in the logframe should have a budget line, and every indicator should appear in the MEAL plan with its data collection frequency and the person responsible. A reviewer who cannot find these links concludes that the project was not designed as a coherent whole.
Quick pre-submission checklist:
- Each result describes a change, not an activity.
- Each indicator has a definition, a baseline, a target and a means of verification.
- Each assumption is plausible and monitored.
- The logframe, the budget and the MEAL plan tell the same story.
Need a second pair of eyes?
Axiom Santé reviews logframes and MEAL plans for NGOs and health programmes. Send us your document: we will return detailed comments and suggested rewording.
Read also: MEAL plan: the 8 essential sections for a health NGO.