ArcGIS for Monitoring and Evaluation Training Course

Participants can select coordinate systems, assess spatial accuracy and document geographic data sources.

• Coordinate reference systems, datums and projected coordinate systems compared
• Geographic versus projected coordinates selected for distance and area analysis
• Scale, resolution and positional accuracy assessed before analytical use
• Map projections matched to country, region and cross-border programme extents
• Metadata records documenting source, date, licence, accuracy and lineage
• Geocoding, gazetteers and administrative boundaries checked against authoritative sources

Participants can establish an ArcGIS Pro project with organised layers, geodatabases and map layouts.

• ArcGIS Pro projects structured with folders, geodatabases, maps and layouts
• Feature classes, tables and domains created within a file geodatabase
• Layer symbology, labels and definition queries configured for programme datasets
• Editing workflows apply topology rules, snapping and attribute validation
• Attribute fields designed using indicator definitions and controlled value lists
• Project packages prepared for reproducible transfer between analysts

Participants can identify, correct and document quality issues in spatial monitoring datasets.

• Data quality dimensions: completeness, validity, consistency, timeliness and uniqueness
• Validation rules identify impossible values, duplicates and missing coordinates
• Outlier screening combines attribute ranges, maps and field verification
• Positional accuracy checks compare submissions with reference imagery and boundaries
• Data-cleaning logs record corrections, exclusions, reasons and responsible staff
• Quality assurance thresholds aligned with indicator reporting decisions

Participants can build a geodatabase schema that preserves relationships between indicators and locations.

• Logical data models connect beneficiaries, services, sites, periods and indicators
• Unique identifiers preserve links between household, facility and spatial records
• One-to-many relationships configured for repeated monitoring observation records
• Domains and subtypes standardise categories used in collection and reporting
• Time-enabled fields support baseline, follow-up and trend analysis
• Geodatabase schema documents field names, types, definitions and allowed values

Participants can configure validated Survey123 forms from indicator reference sheets and field protocols.

• Survey123 forms convert indicator reference sheets into validated digital questionnaires
• Relevant questions, constraints and calculations control respondent-specific form paths
• Repeat sections capture multiple services, observations or household members
• Geopoint capture settings balance required precision, privacy and field feasibility
• Choice lists and multilingual labels support consistent enumerator data entry
• Form testing traces validation failures before deployment to field teams

Participants can plan offline data-collection workflows with quality assurance and incident controls.

• Offline map areas package basemaps and operational layers for disconnected locations
• Field collection protocols define consent, identifiers, coordinates and photo evidence
• Enumerator training materials explain GPS accuracy, edits and sync procedures
• Daily synchronisation checks reconcile devices, submitted records and supervisor review
• Incident procedures address lost devices, duplicate submissions and security concerns
• Fieldwork monitoring maps show coverage, completion rates and flagged records

Participants can connect monitoring tables to spatial features and calculate valid geographic indicators.

• Table joins connect monitoring results to administrative units and service points
• Relates preserve repeated observations without duplicating feature geometry
• SQL definition queries isolate reporting periods, target groups and intervention arms
• Summarise Within calculates beneficiary counts and service totals by area
• Field Calculator derives rates, ratios and percentage-point changes
• Aggregation checks prevent double counting across sites, households and reporting periods

Participants can analyse service coverage, access barriers and areas requiring management attention.

• Network-based travel-time analysis estimates access to health and protection services
• Buffers test coverage around water points, schools and distribution sites
• Hot Spot Analysis identifies statistically significant clusters requiring investigation
• Kernel Density maps reveal concentration patterns while protecting individual identities
• Overlay analysis compares intervention reach with vulnerability and hazard layers
• Spatial joins quantify exposed populations within programme catchment boundaries

Participants can use imagery-derived information appropriately within monitoring and verification workflows.

• Satellite imagery selection considers resolution, acquisition date, clouds and licensing
• Supervised classification distinguishes land cover classes using training samples
• NDVI change detection flags vegetation stress near programme intervention areas
• Before-and-after imagery comparisons separate observable change from attribution claims
• Accuracy assessment uses confusion matrices, reference samples and class-specific measures
• Image-derived indicators document processing parameters, dates and known limitations

Participants can map baseline conditions, geographic targets and time-based performance trends.

• Baseline maps establish starting conditions, denominators and geographic inequities
• Targets disaggregated by district, service area and population group
• Time-series layers track output delivery, outcome proxies and seasonal variation
• Small-area denominators selected from censuses, registries and population estimates
• Choropleth classification methods avoid misleading comparisons between unequal populations
• Trend interpretation separates programme signals from displacement and contextual shocks

Participants can build dashboards that connect geographic performance data to decision questions.

• ArcGIS Dashboards elements align indicators, filters, maps and decision questions
• Serial charts, gauges and indicators present performance against approved targets
• Selectors filter results by period, geography, demographic group and partner
• Dashboard actions link maps, lists and charts for rapid investigation
• Refresh schedules and data dependencies documented for reporting reliability
• Accessibility checks address colour contrast, labels, screen readers and alt text

Participants can publish controlled web maps and reporting views for different stakeholder groups.

• ArcGIS Online web maps publish controlled views of approved monitoring data
• Hosted feature layers configured with editor tracking and update permissions
• Group membership, sharing levels and item ownership govern access
• Web app configurations support partner reporting, field coordination and public communication
• Versioned reporting maps distinguish draft findings from approved publications
• Service credits, storage and account roles monitored for operational continuity

Participants can apply privacy and safeguarding controls to maps containing sensitive information.

• Data protection impact assessments identify risks from location-linked personal data
• Aggregation, masking and generalisation reduce re-identification risk in published maps
• Minimum necessary data principle limits sensitive attributes and retention periods
• Role-based access controls restrict beneficiary records by operational responsibility
• Consent language explains location capture, intended use and withdrawal routes
• Safeguarding referrals remain separated from maps used for routine reporting

Participants can assess geographic sampling coverage and plan field verification protocols.

• Sampling frames map eligible populations, clusters and inaccessible areas
• Spatially balanced sampling improves geographic spread of monitoring observations
• Cluster sampling accounts for travel constraints and design effects
• Sentinel sites selected using risk, representativeness and longitudinal feasibility criteria
• Coverage maps identify sampled, missed and replacement locations
• Field verification protocols resolve discrepancies between sampled coordinates and reality

Participants can use mapped evidence to examine comparison areas, contribution and distributional effects.

• Comparison maps define treatment, comparison and spillover areas before analysis
• Difference-in-differences assumptions assessed through mapped pre-intervention trends over time
• Propensity score matching considers spatial covariates and common support
• Contribution analysis records alternative explanations, contextual events and evidence strength
• Disaggregated findings test whether effects differ by location and group
• Evaluation claims distinguish association, contribution and attributable causal effects

Participants can create clear map products and decision briefs for technical and non-technical audiences.

• Map layouts apply visual hierarchy, scale bars, north arrows and sources
• Classification choices communicate rates, counts and uncertainty without distortion
• Small multiples compare locations, periods and population groups consistently
• Annotation identifies material findings, caveats and recommended management actions
• Technical notes state data sources, processing steps, dates and limitations
• Decision briefs connect mapped evidence to resource allocation and corrective actions

Participants can establish governance procedures that support reliable, traceable spatial reporting.

• Data governance roles assign stewardship, approval, maintenance and publication responsibilities
• Standard operating procedures define collection, cleaning, analysis and archiving steps
• Naming conventions and folder structures maintain traceable programme information assets
• Metadata catalogues support discovery, reuse and controlled data sharing
• Audit trails retain edit history, version dates and approval decisions
• Data retention schedules specify archival, deletion and secure disposal requirements

Participants can use spatial monitoring results to prioritise actions and track management responses.

• After-action reviews use dashboard exceptions to identify operational bottlenecks
• Geographic prioritisation matrices rank areas by need, coverage and feasibility
• Threshold alerts trigger verification, escalation and corrective action workflows
• Scenario maps compare resource allocation options against population needs
• Learning agendas convert recurring spatial questions into evidence priorities
• Management response trackers assign owners, deadlines and verification evidence

Participants can build, review and present a complete spatial monitoring product for a programme decision.

• Project brief defines decision users, questions, indicators and spatial scope
• Geodatabase integrates cleaned monitoring records, boundaries and contextual reference layers
• Analysis plan specifies joins, calculations, disaggregation and quality checks
• Web map and dashboard communicate findings, caveats and management actions
• Peer review tests data integrity, interpretability, safeguarding and reproducibility
• Presentation defends methods, findings and recommendations before a review panel