Reviewing a section of a narrative report to the donor

• I1: 9,840 / 12,000 = 82%. Women and girls: 5,210 / 9,840 = 52.9%.
• I2: 312 / 300 = 104% (target exceeded by 4%, i.e. 12 more latrines).
• I3: 41 / 50 = 82% of the target value; progress of 41 - 22 = 19 points out of the 28 points aimed for (50 - 22), i.e. 67.9% of the distance covered. 41 / 22 = 1.86: the rate did not double.
• I4: 198 / 240 = 82.5%.
• I5: 88 / 120 = 73.3%, against a target of 85%; not met.

"Over 12 months, the project enabled 9,840 people, 53% of them women and girls, to access safe drinking water through the rehabilitation of water points, i.e. 82% of the target of 12,000 people. 312 emergency latrines were built (104% of the target). The proportion of households reporting handwashing with soap at critical times rose from 22% to 41% (endline survey, n = 380), against a target of 50%. The project contributed to this change, to which other actors also contributed. 198 awareness sessions were held out of 240 planned (82.5%). A security incident on the Dori - Seytenga road in March suspended team movements for [duration], which partly explains the gaps on I1, I3 and I4. Finally, 73% of the 120 complaints received were closed within 14 days, against a target of 85%; the complaints follow-up team is to be strengthened."

The candidate may leave [duration] to be completed: they must not invent information they do not have.

"Thanks for your feedback. I would rather not write 'target met' for I3: 41% against 50% represents 68% of the planned progress, and the donor has the indicator table validated by MEAL; a contradiction would weaken the whole report. On the other hand, we can highlight the 19-point increase and explain the effect of the suspension in March. For I5, the indicator is part of the logical framework: removing it would be an omission in a contractual report. I suggest keeping the 73% figure with the corrective measure. If you wish, we can discuss it with the MEAL manager before sending."