Integrated MEL Modules – Theoretical Framework for Monitoring and Evaluation of Public Policies with a Focus on Rule of Law Reforms, Third Edition, 10 April 2025

On April 10, 2025, the first module of the third edition of the Integrated Modules for MEL (Monitoring and Evaluation of Rule of Law Policies) was held. The session gave participants the opportunity to share their experiences, areas of interest, and expectations for the program. It began with introductions and a discussion about forming working groups based on key rule of law topics, such as anti-corruption, public procurement, property rights, gender equality, irregular migration management, and vocational education. Participants also reviewed strategic documents that would be used throughout the program, both for practical exercises and for the final group task. Suggested documents included the Anti-Corruption Strategy, the Gender Equality Strategy, the Rule of Law Roadmap, the new Public Procurement Law, the Growth Plan Reform Agenda, and the Action Plan for Integrated Border Management.

Later in the session, lecturer Mimoza Agolli introduced the theoretical framework for monitoring and evaluating public policies. She focused on key concepts and the structure of MEL, underlining its importance for transparency and accountability in public institutions during both policymaking and implementation. She emphasized that MEL is a core part of the policy cycle, helping measure progress and impact, and learning from the process to improve future actions.

Agolli explained the different types of monitoring and evaluation, and stressed that the method should be chosen based on the purpose of the MEL process, available time, human and financial resources, and other relevant factors. She called this approach methodical decision-making — based on what exactly we want to measure and evaluate. She also introduced the Theory of Change, which she described as both a process and a product. It starts with analyzing the context (baseline) and then maps the expected sequence of changes that a new policy or reform aims to achieve. In the final phase, impact evaluation is done through an endline analysis to measure the results.

In the final two sessions, Agolli presented practical examples and involved participants in exercises and discussions. One key example was about assessing the integrity of local public institutions and monitoring the implementation of integrity plans. The evaluation was based on five criteria: Transparency, Accountability, Strategic approach to integrity, Integrity standards, Meritocracy. To calculate the Integrity Index, two evaluation methods were used: a-Self-assessment by the municipality, b-External evaluation through citizen feedback. Although the format of questions and data collection was standardized, the results showed clear differences. In several municipalities, internal self-assessments gave positive scores for certain indicators, while citizen feedback rated them much lower. This demonstrated how different methods can produce different results — even when evaluating the same issue. This example showed the importance of clearly defining the objective of MEL: what problem we are addressing, what we want to change, and which method is the most appropriate to achieve that goal.