Pinpoint Ventures Advisory
MEL Architecture: Contribution Analysis + Outcome Harvesting
India Health and Climate Resilience Fund (IHCRF) · Programme MEL Framework v2.0
ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE
Designed by Pinpoint Ventures
pinpointventures.in
Input
Activity
Output
Outcome
Impact
CA Contribution Analysis evidence
OH Outcome Harvesting source
HH Household survey data point
Inputs
Fund capital
IHCRF grant disbursements to 4 priority districts
Technical support
MEL, programme design, HCD facilitation
Community time + knowledge
FGDs, field verification, community scorecards
Government systems
ASHA, ANM, PHC infrastructure; HMIS reporting
Activities
Health facility strengthening
Equipment, drug supply, staff deployment support
CA
Community health worker training
Climate-health content in ASHA module; refresher cycles
CA
Climate-health surveillance
Sentinel sites; weekly climate-illness reporting
CA
Community resilience support
SHG health savings pilots; livelihood diversification
OH
Outputs
Facilities upgraded
% facilities meeting climate-readiness standard
CA HH
CHWs trained
ASHA + ANM with climate-health competency certification
CA
Surveillance system active
Weekly sentinel data flowing to district & state
CA
SHG health funds active
Groups with dedicated health emergency savings
OH HH
Outcomes
Improved health-seeking behaviour
Reduced delay; higher govt facility utilisation during climate events
OH HH
Reduced catastrophic expenditure
Fewer HH pushed into health-related debt post-shock
HH
System responsiveness to climate
Early warning acted on; surge protocols activated
CA OH
Strengthened community agency
Emergent: communities negotiating access; policy advocacy
OH
Impact
Reduced climate-health mortality and morbidity
Decline in heat-related and water-borne disease burden in priority districts, disaggregated by social group and gender
CA HH
Reduced vulnerability of marginalised households
Measurable improvement in composite vulnerability score at district level (3-year horizon)
HH
Contribution Analysis Framework — Contribution Claims and Evidence Portfolio
Claim 1
Facility upgrading → reduced access barriers during climate events
Evidence: pre-post facility audit; community access scorecard; HH survey module D (D.7)
Claim 2
CHW training → improved early recognition of climate-related illness
Evidence: competency assessment; sentinel reporting coverage; community KII
Claim 3
Surveillance system → faster district health response to climate shocks
Evidence: response time logs; DHAP amendment records; desk review of district orders
Claim 4
SHG health savings → reduced catastrophic OOP post-shock
Evidence: HH survey module E (E.5–E.6); SHG fund utilisation logs; FGDs with members
Outcome Harvesting — Collection Design
Harvest Cycle
Six-monthly outcome harvest. Field staff submit outcome stories using structured prompt; MEL team substantiates against documentary evidence and community informant.
Outcome Story Elements
Who changed? What changed? When? Contributing factors named by community, not assumed by programme staff. Stories disaggregated by gender and caste.
Emergent Outcome Watch
Three watch domains not in ToC: (i) community advocacy for facility staffing; (ii) inter-village climate preparedness arrangements; (iii) women's decision-making on health-seeking.
Learning and Adaptation Loops
Rapid loop (quarterly)
HMIS + sentinel data reviewed by programme team. Immediate flag to district if climate-illness spike not triggering expected system response.
Mid-cycle loop (annual)
Outcome harvest reviewed; contribution claims tested against evidence. Programme design adjustments documented in adaptive management log.
Strategic loop (end of phase)
HH survey results + harvest + CA evidence triangulated. District prioritisation framework reviewed. Portfolio reallocation decisions informed by composite evidence.
System loop (cross-programme)
IHCRF findings fed into state NHM planning cycle. Surveillance data shared with NIMHANS/ICMR climate-health research. Policy brief prepared for MoHFW.
Framework design: Pinpoint Ventures Advisory LLP. This MEL architecture integrates Contribution Analysis (Mayne, 2012) — which tests causal claims through structured evidence portfolios — with Outcome Harvesting (Wilson-Grau & Britt, 2012), which captures changes in the behaviour of social actors that the programme has influenced, intended or otherwise. The two methods are complementary: CA is appropriate where causal pathways are well-specified; OH is appropriate where programme influence is less direct and outcomes may be emergent. Data sources referenced: HMIS (facility outputs); Household Survey modules B–E (access, climate, quality, resilience); Sentinel surveillance system; Community Key Informant Interviews; SHG utilisation records.   |  ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE — Pinpoint Ventures Advisory LLP — pinpointventures.in