Nicoll Peracha 🔸

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 1 Mar 2026 9:12 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: An­i­mal Move­ment Needs Assess­ment re Mon­i­tor­ing, Eval­u­a­tion, and Learning

  Thanks for offering Vasco! We’ll likely take you up on this.
  
  An impact analysis or cost-effectiveness estimate is one of the most asked questions. When talking with the organizations, we however almost always land on gathering data on the project first to inform why a program is generating results (otherwise, a CEA/​CEE isn’t very actionable).
  
  However, I wouldn’t be surprised if we do some in the coming period. Even if the actual number of animal/​dollar isn’t actionable (yet), a CEA/​CEE can be used to identify the most likely drivers for impact. Let’s stay in touch!

An­i­mal Move­ment Needs Assess­ment re Mon­i­tor­ing, Eval­u­a­tion, and Learning

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 31 Dec 2025 16:44 UTC

  11 points

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Stien’s comment on: Pagw’s Shortform

  Just a quick word from me, Nicoll from The Mission Motor (TMM supports Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning in the animal movement). Thanks Stien, for your balanced and clear thoughts and for asking for our take.

  Based on what I read, I would consider this to be a novel and higher-risk intervention. Many of the more common interventions in the animal space could do with more robust data gathering, but a higher-risk/​novel intervention would warrant an even stronger focus on MEL.

  Common data gathering instruments, such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc. (when asking the right questions), can work well here to gather relevant data. And, saying this with a bit of caution, I don’t think more elaborate MEL tools are needed.
  
  Some of the challenges we foresee are reaching particular groups you might want data on (eg. people who read the campaign materials and don’t actively engage, but could change their attitude or behaviour) and saying something sensible about the overall effect of the campaign. Particularly as it likely impacts another campaign (Veganuary), and because of comparing increased animal welfare through donations vs less animals in factory farming leading net negative lives as a result of less animal consumption.

  I think it is possible to overcome these and other challenges, but this might come at too high a cost to still be a responsible use of resources.

  To be able to properly comment on credible indicators, I’d love to know the specific Theory of Change, so I won’t go into that now.
  
  I totally assume FarmKind has done some MEL work already, but if we can be of assistance, we’d be happy to help!
  

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 29 Aug 2025 11:29 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: AxellePB 🔹’s comment on: Mon­i­tor­ing, Eval­u­a­tion, and Learn­ing: A Sim­ple Introduction

  We sometimes do. Please let us know what kind of help you would like by either filling out the intake form on the website or sending an email to contact@Themissionmotor.org, and we’ll be in touch.

Mon­i­tor­ing, Eval­u­a­tion, and Learn­ing: A Sim­ple Introduction

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 22 Jul 2025 6:09 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Can for-profit com­pa­nies cre­ate sig­nifi­cant, di­rect im­pact?

  Insightful! Thanks for writing this.

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 5 Jun 2025 11:35 UTC

  1 point

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Chicken re­forms and veg ad­vo­cacy may con­tribute to the Small An­i­mal Re­place­ment Prob­lem—it’s not just en­vi­ron­men­tal strategies

  Food for thought! (and research or M&E)

Join our we­bi­nars about Mon­i­tor­ing & Evaluation

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 5 Mar 2025 17:13 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Teresa Jakovlev’s comment on: Can Mon­i­tor­ing and Eval­u­a­tion Drive Or­ga­ni­za­tional Change? Les­sons from The Mis­sion Motor

  You’re welcome. Let us know please if you have any questions :)

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 4 Mar 2025 16:55 UTC

  5 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Can Mon­i­tor­ing and Eval­u­a­tion Drive Or­ga­ni­za­tional Change? Les­sons from The Mis­sion Motor

  Hi Vasco, Great question we’ve been looking into for a while now. We indeed use cost-effectiveness as one factor to decide which organizations to support more intensively. We also look at other factors.
  
  The research base (and practicing MEL) is not yet very well developed for animal interventions. Also, interventions that are cost-effective now, might not be in a few years from now if e.g. the context changes. Besides the evidence base not being robust (yet), it is also more difficult to assess the longer-term effects of interventions.

  MEL can contribute to building an evidence base for interventions and to know when to pivot or scale. It is therefore important for The Mission Motor to not only support interventions that are assessed as being cost-effective and impactful now, but also to help collect data on existing, or novel interventions without a firm evidence base yet, that have the potential to be impactful.
  
  What we’ve landed on is to use a set of proxies primarily for organizations we support longer-term. As said, (potential) cost-effectiveness is a factor, next to other factors such as the ability to grow in MEL capacity (can we still contribute?) and organizational characteristics such as learning attitude, capacity to work on MEL, and a certain stability.
  
  Let me know if you have input or questions plse! We’ll be evaluating this system, and probably updating it regularly.

Can Mon­i­tor­ing and Eval­u­a­tion Drive Or­ga­ni­za­tional Change? Les­sons from The Mis­sion Motor

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 25 Feb 2025 10:57 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: An­i­mal Welfare League 2024 Re­view and 2025 Plans

  It’s a joy working with your team and seeing the progress you’ve made! Thank you for the special shout-out to The Mission Motor. We’re here to help :-)

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 13 Jan 2025 14:01 UTC

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ASuchy’s comment on: Reser­va­tions about donat­ing for an­i­mal welfare charities

  Thanks for mentioning The Mission Motor Alex. Because of the holidays, I’m quite late to this party :-), so almost everything has already been said.
  
  Just a short response to stress that indeed as The Mission Motor we support animal organizations to collect credible and relevant data. By doing so, we aim to contribute to collecting more and more data that will be useful for organizations, donors, and funders on where to direct their resources.
  
  We have noticed that within the animal cause area, there is less room for large quantitative tools such as RCTs, due to many interventions working with lower numbers of target groups and due to a lack of money (RCTs are usually pretty expensive). However, also with other monitoring and evaluation tools, we can uncover relevant and useful information!
  
  Our budget for 2025 has not been filled yet, so I would invite anyone interested in donating to The Mission Motor to contact me.

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 14 Oct 2024 18:15 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Steven Rouk’s comment on: Some rea­sons for not pri­ori­tis­ing an­i­mal welfare very strongly

  Thanks for the post Engin. Also echoing what you wrote Steven. Wanted to add that my (still limited) experience with training orgs in M&E, is that there’s a lot we can learn about the effectiveness of animal interventions by improving the use of M&E. Calculating actual impact seems more difficult, but hopefully we can step by step narrow the knowlegde gap, and better know how to spend an additional 100m.

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 2 Jul 2024 7:53 UTC

  4 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: EA Nether­land’s The­ory of Change

  A late reaction James and Marieke. However, I wanted to say thanks for sharing this well-thought-through document. In my view, it highlights how a Theory of Change on an organizational level can contribute to making choices and strategizing. Love it.

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 27 May 2024 9:53 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Cameron.K’s comment on: Bring­ing Mon­i­tor­ing, Eval­u­a­tion and, Learn­ing to an­i­mal ad­vo­cates: 6 months of les­sons learned

  Thanks Cameron! :-)
  
  We’ll post again as soon as we’ve got new insights to share.

Bring­ing Mon­i­tor­ing, Eval­u­a­tion and, Learn­ing to an­i­mal ad­vo­cates: 6 months of les­sons learned

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 7 Oct 2023 1:56 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Sup­port­ing grass­roots effec­tively: You can give to the most effec­tive char­ity in your com­mu­nity, even if none of them have “data”

  Interesting perspective I had not thought about in this way before. It links very well with more common views of highly valuing the input (and needs) from your target communities.
  
  Blake Hannagan and I are currently piloting a MEL training and coaching program for animal and vegan advocacy charities. Part of it is to investigate up to what level organizations can and should collect quantitative data, and when they’d better rely on more qualitative information; realizing the MEL in the animal space might be a bit different from MEL in global health or poverty.
  
  Thanks for writing this!

• Nicoll Peracha 🔸 4 Nov 2022 10:59 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Cause Ex­plo­ra­tion: Manag­ing So­cietal Transitions

  Thanks for writing this thought-through cause exploration. Looking forward to see if and what comes out of this.
  
  On a very low scale I’m already developing the implementation of this combination of looking at the potentially most impactful interventions on their own, and system’s thinking which is more about “in what phase of a transition does it make sense to implement what type of interventions”. For the moment I’m concentrating on the Multi Level Perspective (Loorbach/​Geels etc) and Sustainable Market Transformation model (New Foresight).
  
  I will read some of the literature you mention in the notes, to broaden my horizon.