Development Without Data? Investigating Transparency, Monitoring and Evidence in Tunisia’s Public Projects

Development projects are usually presented through numbers.

A project has a budget. A programme has a target. A ministry announces an investment. A development partner publishes a financing agreement. A public institution reports a percentage of implementation. A project document identifies thousands of expected beneficiaries.

But numbers alone do not necessarily explain what is happening on the ground.

A budget tells us how much money was allocated. A contract tells us what was purchased. An implementation report may indicate how much work has been completed. A monitoring document may report progress against indicators.

Yet one fundamental question remains:

What evidence demonstrates that the project actually produced the promised change?

This question is particularly important when public resources, international development financing and large infrastructure or social programmes are involved.

The challenge is not simply the absence of data.

In many cases, information exists but is fragmented across institutions, reports, procurement platforms, project-management units, donor documents and administrative databases.

The result can be a gap between information available to institutions and evidence available to the public.

This investigation examines that gap and proposes a practical method for following development projects through data, documents, monitoring and field verification.

Development Starts With a Baseline

Before a project can demonstrate results, it needs to establish what the situation was before the intervention.

This is the baseline.

A development project may begin because a region has low employment, limited access to water, inadequate infrastructure, weak agricultural productivity, poor access to health services or high levels of social vulnerability.

The project should therefore identify the problem using measurable information.

For example:

How many people are affected?

Where are they located?

What services are missing?

What is the existing level of access?

What income levels are recorded?

What employment conditions exist?

What infrastructure already exists?

What indicators will be used to measure change?

Without a reliable baseline, it becomes difficult to determine whether later improvements are genuinely connected to the project.

A project may report that 5,000 people received training, for example.

But that figure does not answer whether their employment situation improved.

The baseline provides the starting point against which change can be examined.

The Difference Between Activity and Result

One of the most important problems in development reporting is the difference between activities and results.

An activity may be:

• training people;
• constructing facilities;
• distributing equipment;
• creating a digital platform;
• financing enterprises;
• rehabilitating infrastructure;
• conducting awareness campaigns.

A result concerns what changed because those activities took place.

For example:

Activity: 1,000 people received professional training.

Result: A measurable proportion of those participants obtained employment or established sustainable income-generating activities.

The distinction is crucial.

Counting activities can demonstrate that a programme was active.

It does not automatically demonstrate that the programme was effective.

Outputs, Outcomes and Impact

Development projects often use several levels of measurement.

Outputs refer to what the project directly produces.

Examples include:

roads constructed, training sessions delivered, equipment distributed or facilities rehabilitated.

Outcomes concern what happens after those outputs are used.

Examples include improved access to markets, increased employment, greater income or improved access to services.

Impact concerns broader and longer-term changes.

Examples might include reduced poverty, greater economic resilience or improved living conditions.

A serious investigation should therefore avoid stopping at output indicators.

The central question should be:

Did the output produce the expected outcome?

And, where sufficient evidence exists:

Did the outcome contribute to the broader impact promised by the project?

Where Is the Data?

A journalist investigating a development project may encounter information in many different places.

Potential sources include:

• national budget documents;
• public procurement records;
• project agreements;
• technical studies;
• project websites;
• annual reports;
• monitoring reports;
• evaluation reports;
• financial statements;
• implementation plans;
• parliamentary or institutional documents;
• development-partner publications;
• statistical databases;
• municipal documents;
• field interviews.

The challenge is to connect these sources.

A project document may contain the original target.

A procurement document may identify the contractor.

A progress report may provide implementation percentages.

A financial document may indicate expenditure.

A field visit may reveal whether the infrastructure is functioning.

Only by connecting these sources can the journalist reconstruct the complete picture.

The Transparency Chain

A useful investigative framework is to divide project transparency into several stages:

Planning

↓

Financing

↓

Procurement

↓

Implementation

↓

Monitoring

↓

Payment

↓

Completion

↓

Operation

↓

Results

↓

Impact

At each stage, the journalist should ask:

What document exists?

Who produced it?

What information does it contain?

Can the information be independently verified?

Is the information publicly accessible?

This approach transforms transparency from a general concept into a concrete investigative process.

Monitoring Is Not the Same as Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are often treated as if they were the same thing.

They are not.

Monitoring generally tracks implementation over time.

It can answer questions such as:

How many activities were completed?

How much of the budget was spent?

How many beneficiaries were reached?

How many facilities were constructed?

Evaluation goes further.

It asks whether the intervention achieved its objectives and why.

An investigation should therefore establish whether a project has only monitoring information or whether independent or formal evaluation has also been conducted.

If a programme reports high implementation but no evidence of outcomes, that distinction matters.

The Problem of Self-Reported Success

Development institutions naturally need to report progress.

Project managers must demonstrate that activities are being implemented.

Donors need information about the use of financing.

Public authorities need to report on programmes.

These reporting systems are necessary.

But a journalist should distinguish between:

an institution reporting its own progress

and

independent evidence confirming the reported result.

For example, a project may report that a certain number of beneficiaries were reached.

The journalist can then ask:

Were the beneficiaries actually eligible?

Did they receive the stated service?

Was the service completed?

Did they continue using it?

Did their situation change?

What evidence supports the reported result?

This is not an accusation.

It is a verification method.

The Evidence Hierarchy

Not all information has the same evidentiary value.

A useful investigation can organize evidence into levels.

Level 1: Official announcement

Useful for identifying what an institution says.

Level 2: Official project document

Useful for establishing objectives, budgets, targets and responsibilities.

Level 3: Contract and procurement documentation

Useful for reconstructing financial and contractual relationships.

Level 4: Monitoring and evaluation reports

Useful for measuring implementation and reported results.

Level 5: Independent data

Useful for comparing project claims with broader statistical evidence.

Level 6: Field verification

Useful for establishing what can actually be observed.

Level 7: Beneficiary testimony

Useful for understanding how the intervention affects people in practice.

The strongest investigations combine several levels rather than relying on one source.

The Data Gap

A project can contain hundreds of pages of documentation while still leaving important questions unanswered.

For example, a report may provide:

“80 percent of activities completed.”

But what does that mean?

Does it refer to expenditure?

Physical construction?

Training sessions?

Beneficiaries?

Procurement?

Or another indicator?

A percentage without a clear denominator can be misleading.

The journalist should always ask:

80 percent of what?

This simple question can reveal major differences between financial, physical and operational progress.

The Denominator Problem

Consider a programme that reports:

“90 percent of beneficiaries reached.”

The journalist should determine:

90 percent of the original target?

90 percent of registered participants?

90 percent of applications?

90 percent of households?

The same principle applies to financial data.

70 percent of the budget spent does not necessarily mean 70 percent of the project completed.

The denominator defines the meaning of the percentage.

For data-driven journalism, this is one of the most important verification rules.

Following the Indicator

Every major project should have a set of indicators.

An investigation can select a small number of critical indicators and follow them from the beginning to the present.

For each indicator, record:

Original target

Baseline

Current value

Target date

Source

Method of measurement

Independent verification

This produces an Indicator Tracking File.

The file can reveal whether the project is moving toward its objectives or whether reporting is concentrated mainly on activities.

Data Can Hide Regional Differences

National averages can conceal local realities.

A programme may report positive national results while some regions experience little change.

This is why geographical disaggregation matters.

Where possible, data should be examined by:

• governorate;
• delegation;
• municipality;
• rural/urban area;
• gender;
• age;
• economic category;
• beneficiary group.

A national figure may show improvement.

A regional breakdown may reveal that the improvement is concentrated in particular areas.

This is especially relevant to development programmes addressing regional inequalities.

Who Owns the Data?

Another important investigative question is:

Who is responsible for producing and maintaining the data?

A project may involve several institutions.

One institution may collect beneficiary information.

Another may manage procurement.

Another may manage financial information.

A project-management unit may prepare progress reports.

An external partner may conduct an evaluation.

If these systems are not connected, important information can become fragmented.

The journalist should therefore map the data responsibility chain.

Data Quality

Availability does not automatically mean quality.

Before using a dataset, journalists should ask:

When was it collected?

Who collected it?

What methodology was used?

How large was the sample?

What definitions were applied?

Has the methodology changed over time?

Are there missing observations?

Can the figures be reproduced?

Were the indicators independently verified?

This is particularly important when comparing project data across different years.

A change in methodology can create the appearance of improvement or deterioration even when the underlying situation has not changed in the same way.

When Data and Reality Disagree

One of the most valuable investigative situations occurs when official data and field observations appear inconsistent.

Suppose a report states that an infrastructure project is operational.

A site visit may reveal that the facility exists but is not functioning.

Suppose a programme reports that beneficiaries received equipment.

Interviews may reveal that some equipment was delivered but is not being used.

Suppose a project reports employment outcomes.

Follow-up interviews may show that some jobs were temporary rather than sustainable.

These discrepancies do not automatically prove that the official data are false.

They create a verification question.

The journalist should return to the underlying documents and ask the responsible institution to explain the difference.

The Importance of Time

Development results rarely appear immediately.

A training programme may require months before employment outcomes can be measured.

A new road may require several agricultural seasons before its economic effects become visible.

A social-protection intervention may need follow-up to determine whether households achieve sustainable economic inclusion.

Therefore, the investigation should distinguish between:

immediate outputs

medium-term outcomes

and

long-term impacts.

A project should not necessarily be judged by an indicator that it was never designed to achieve within the relevant timeframe.

The Follow-Up Test

A particularly useful investigative method is the 12–24 month follow-up.

Select a sample of beneficiaries or project sites.

Then return after an appropriate period and ask:

What happened after the intervention?

Is the service still operating?

Is the equipment still being used?

Did employment continue?

Did income change?

Did the beneficiary remain in the programme?

Did the infrastructure receive maintenance?

Did the expected economic or social benefit materialize?

This approach moves reporting from announcement to longitudinal investigation.

The Evidence File

For every development project, journalists can create a standardized Development Evidence File.

It should contain:

Project identity

Responsible institution

Financing sources

Original budget

Contract value

Implementation period

Original objectives

Baseline indicators

Target indicators

Procurement documents

Progress reports

Financial execution

Physical execution

Evaluation reports

Beneficiary data

Field observations

Photographic evidence

Interview records

Institutional responses

Final findings

This creates a reusable research structure for ATEP MED's investigative and development reporting work.

Open Data and Public Access

The existence of public data is only useful if citizens and journalists can access and understand it.

Important questions include:

Is the information publicly available?

Is it machine-readable?

Can historical data be accessed?

Are project-level figures available?

Are datasets updated?

Are definitions explained?

Can citizens identify the responsible institution?

Can procurement and implementation information be connected?

A PDF containing hundreds of pages may technically be public but difficult to analyze.

Accessible data should ideally allow users to search, compare and reuse information.

What Happens When Data Is Missing?

Missing information is itself a reporting fact.

If a project publishes its budget but not its implementation indicators, that should be documented.

If procurement information exists but progress reports are unavailable, the gap should be identified.

If beneficiaries are reported but outcome data are absent, the investigation should say so.

The journalist should never fill missing information with assumptions.

Instead:

Identify the missing data.

Ask the responsible institution for it.

Document the response.

Search for alternative authoritative sources.

Explain the limitation to readers.

This protects the credibility of the investigation.

The Right of Reply

Before publishing findings based on data discrepancies or missing evidence, relevant institutions should be contacted.

Questions should be precise.

For example:

Why does the reported implementation rate differ from the physical condition observed in the field?

What methodology was used to calculate the indicator?

What is the current value of the indicator?

Has an independent evaluation been conducted?

Why are certain datasets not publicly available?

When will updated information be published?

The answers should be documented and incorporated fairly into the final report.

A New Standard for Development Journalism

Development journalism can go beyond reporting announcements.

Instead of asking only:

“How much money was allocated?”

the investigation can ask:

“What evidence demonstrates what happened to that money?”

Instead of:

“How many beneficiaries were reached?”

ask:

“What changed for those beneficiaries?”

Instead of:

“How much of the project was completed?”

ask:

“Is the completed infrastructure functioning and delivering the intended service?”

Instead of:

“Did the programme meet its activity targets?”

ask:

“Did those activities produce measurable outcomes?”

This approach transforms development reporting into evidence-based accountability journalism.

The Development Data Audit

A journalist can conduct a simple data audit before beginning a major investigation.

Step 1: Identify the promise

What did the project originally promise?

Step 2: Identify the indicator

How was success supposed to be measured?

Step 3: Find the baseline

What was the situation before the project?

Step 4: Find the latest data

What is the most recent documented position?

Step 5: Verify the methodology

How were the numbers calculated?

Step 6: Compare sources

Do different official and independent sources tell the same story?

Step 7: Conduct field verification

Does reality correspond with the documented status?

Step 8: Interview beneficiaries

What changed in their daily lives?

Step 9: Request explanations

Give institutions an opportunity to explain discrepancies.

Step 10: Publish the evidence trail

Show readers how the conclusion was reached.

The Central Investigative Question

Every development project ultimately has to answer one question:

Where is the evidence of change?

Not merely evidence that money was allocated.

Not merely evidence that a contract was signed.

Not merely evidence that activities were organized.

Not merely evidence that a report was published.

The strongest evidence connects:

Money → Activity → Output → Outcome → Beneficiary → Change

If one of these links is missing, the journalist should investigate why.

Conclusion

Development without reliable evidence becomes difficult to evaluate.

Budgets, contracts, implementation percentages and activity reports are essential pieces of information, but they do not automatically tell the complete story.

The real challenge is to connect financial information with physical progress, monitoring data, independent evidence and the lived experience of beneficiaries.

For journalists, this creates an opportunity to develop a more rigorous form of development reporting.

The objective is not to assume that a project succeeded or failed.

It is to establish what can be demonstrated.

What was promised?

What was financed?

What was delivered?

What was measured?

What was independently verified?

What changed?

For whom?

And what evidence supports the answer?

These questions provide a practical foundation for investigating public and development projects in Tunisia.

The central principle is simple:

Data should not merely describe development. Data should allow the public to verify it.

---

Investigative Methodology

This report proposes a document-, data- and field-based methodology for investigating transparency, monitoring and evidence in development projects.

The methodology combines project documents, budget and procurement information, monitoring reports, evaluation studies, statistical data, indicator tracking, field verification and beneficiary interviews.

The investigation should distinguish clearly between reported activities, measurable outputs, outcomes and longer-term impacts. Percentages should always be examined in relation to their denominator, methodology and reference period.

Where discrepancies appear between official reporting and field evidence, the investigation should document the discrepancy, seek clarification from the responsible institution and provide a right of reply before publication.

Missing information should be identified as a documented information gap rather than replaced with assumptions.

The final investigation should allow readers to reconstruct the evidence chain:

Financing → Procurement → Implementation → Monitoring → Verification → Outcome → Beneficiary Impact

A document- and data-based investigative report
Prepared and published by: Mohamed Chaieb Barhoumi
ATEP MED – Arabic Digital Center for Media & Development