Measure · Outcome Evidence

    Hear from everyone your programme reached — not a sample of them

    We collect outcome evidence directly from your beneficiaries by voice AI — over any phone, or face-to-face through a digital avatar. No enumerators. No field teams. No sampling. In the languages people actually speak.

    Everyone

    Complete enumeration, not sampling

    Days

    Not months

    κ 0.75

    Validated to academic standard

    Any

    Language, dialect or small language

    Why it works

    A form is answered by the people who answer forms

    The most excluded people — the non-literate, the unconnected, those without time or trust for a formal survey — are exactly the ones a questionnaire loses. A conversation reaches them. And it captures what no fixed form can: the things nobody thought to ask.

    The written survey

    What a form returns

    • Only the answers to questions already on it
    • Completed by the literate and the connected
    • A sample, generalised to a population
    • Boxes ticked — not what people meant
    The Fortell conversation

    What a conversation returns

    • What people raise unprompted — coded and counted
    • The non-literate, on a basic phone, in their language
    • Everyone reached — complete enumeration
    • Their own words, behind every number
    Two ways we collect data

    One platform. Two channels. You choose per programme.

    Voice · Live demo

    Amina

    AI voice interviewer · any phone line

    Collects outcome data from clients and end-beneficiaries over any phone line — no internet or smartphone required. You choose the script: Amina can probe conversationally, or follow a rigid protocol.

    Needs: a phone. Any phone. Reaches the hardest to reach.

    Avatar · Live demo

    Face-to-face interviewer

    Digital avatar · structured interviews

    A digital avatar for structured interviews — open and closed questions, quant and qual. People answer in their own words and language, including dialects and small languages.

    Needs: a screen and some internet. Richer, face-to-face.

    Read how we interviewed 2,300+ people in under a week for UNICEF Mozambique →
    Why institutions choose it

    Complete. Fast. And repeatable, at a fraction of the cost.

    COMPLETE, NOT SAMPLED

    Everyone reachable is heard

    Direct engagement with entire populations, not a stratified few hundred. Every beneficiary reachable is heard.

    DAYS, NOT MONTHS

    Results in days

    Findings arrive while the decision is still open — not months later, when it's already been made.

    REPEATABLE BY DESIGN

    A trend line, not a snapshot

    A fraction of enumerator cost, and repeat rounds cost about half. An evaluation becomes a trend line.

    What we measure

    Three kinds of evidence, one method

    01

    Impact Assessment & Evaluation

    We help you define what to measure, or map to the frameworks you already use — then collect the evidence that proves what changed, from the people your programme served.

    02

    Monitoring & Evaluation

    Continuous data collection across your programme cycle — tracking progress and generating evidence before decisions are already made.

    03

    Large-Scale Consultations

    Thousands of voices across communities, languages and geographies in days rather than months — in time to inform decisions still being made.

    Built to your funders' standards

    We map to the frameworks your funders already track

    PROFILEWho the programme reached
    OUTCOMESEuropean Pillar of Social Rights indicators
    VOICEWhat it meant, in their own words

    Your indicators don't become a Fortell scorecard a funder has to take on trust. They read directly against the frameworks European institutions already use — including the European Pillar of Social Rights, which anchored our impact evaluation of a Spanish microcredit programme.

    European CommissionEuropean Pillar of Social RightsOECD DACUNEG
    Independent validation

    The data stands up to scrutiny

    AI-coded voice data matched human expert analysis at κ = 0.75 — substantial agreement, verified under peer-grade conditions. The academic threshold for substantial agreement is 0.61.

    • 400 transcripts independently coded
    • Random sampling methodology
    • Peer-grade validation conditions
    0.75Kappa scoreSubstantial agreement
    Built for

    One instrument, across your whole portfolio

    For funders and investors, the same conversation runs across every institution or grantee you back — so results sit on one scale and genuinely compare. One study is a finding. Repeated, it's a trend.

    European institutions & ESF+

    Evidence in the frameworks the Commission already tracks.

    Development finance institutions

    Portfolio-wide client outcomes, on one comparable instrument.

    Impact funds

    Beneficiary-level evidence your LPs can trust, every year.

    NGOs & development organisations

    Reach the people your programme serves — all of them.

    Need evidence that meets institutional standards?

    Tell us about your programme, and we'll explain exactly how we'd collect the evidence you need — or stand up a demo interviewer in your beneficiaries' language first.