Program Evaluation Reports

We recently did "lookbacks" to see how well 2 recent GiveWell grants met our initial expectations. 1 went better than expected, 1 went worse. More on what we learned ⤵️ 1️⃣ Since 2020, we've given ~$120m to New Incentives for cash incentives to get kids vaccinated in Nigeria. These grants are *more* cost-effective than we initially thought. We estimated they’d save ~17k lives. Looking back, we think they saved ~27k. Why? Costs dropped from ~$40 per child to ~$20 as the program grew from ~70k to ~1.5m kids - likely due to economies of scale, naira devaluation, and other cost savings. 2️⃣ In 2021, we made a $7.5m grant to Helen Keller International for vitamin A supplements in Nigeria. This grant looks *less* cost-effective than we expected. We thought it would save ~2k lives. Now we think it saved ~450. Why? We now think vitamin A deficiency in Nigeria is lower than we previously thought - and that a lot more kids receive VAS outside of campaigns than we realized. ➡️ Some other lessons: - Initial estimates can be way off - we need more humility about cost-effectiveness numbers - We should talk to local stakeholders more - we've probably missed useful info by not talking enough to govt officials and local experts - Location-specific data (like state-level burden estimates) can be really noisy - we need to triangulate with multiple sources - Quick program exits can strain relationships - saw this with VAS expansions in Nigeria ➡️ We picked these 2 grants for initial lookbacks because: - enough time had passed to see real outcomes - the findings could inform upcoming grant decisions - the grants were large/important to our portfolio Going forward, we plan to conduct lookbacks more regularly across our grant portfolio and publish what we find. 📄 More here: https://lnkd.in/gGhF3y6v

Your evaluation was rigorous. Your report killed it. You designed the methodology carefully. You interrogated the findings until you were confident they were right. Then you wrote a 80-page document. It buried the most important finding on page 34, and.. submitted it to a stakeholder who read the executive summary on a flight and never opened it again. The evaluation was good. The report undid it. And this isn't a personal failing. It's a sector-wide one. The development sector produces thousands of evaluation reports every year. Most of them change nothing. The writing is why. Not the data. Not the methodology. Not the sampling strategy or the theory of change. The writing. 𝗖𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗣𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝘁𝘄𝗼, 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼. They're dense where they should be direct. Cautious where they should be bold. Written to demonstrate expertise rather than to communicate it. And the people who needed to act on the findings... the minister skimming between meetings, the programme manager already stretched thin, the donor trying to decide whether to renew, they encountered a wall of jargon, a forest of tables, and a recommendation section so hedged and generalised it could apply to any programme anywhere. So they didn't act. Or they acted on instinct instead of evidence. Because the report didn't give them a choice. Here's how to do better... 1. Write for a real audience, not an abstract one ↳ Not “stakeholders” ↳ The specific person who will use this ↳ The minister with 5 minutes ↳ The programme manager under pressure ↳ The donor deciding on funding If you don’t know who you’re writing for, you’ll default to writing for yourself. 2. Start with the decision, not the methodology ↳ What needs to change because of this report? Write to that. 3. Lead with the answer ↳ Don’t make people work for the insight Page 1 should tell them what matters 4. Design for use, not submission ↳ A report is not the final product A decision is ---- Want insights like this directly in your inbox? Sign up for my mailing list. It's FREE! 👉 https://lnkd.in/ec8mqV2M

Are your programs making the impact you envision or are they costing more than they give back? A few years ago, I worked with an organization grappling with a tough question: Which programs should we keep, grow, or let go? They felt stretched thin, with some initiatives thriving and others barely holding on. It was clear they needed a clearer strategy to align their programs with their long-term goals. We introduced a tool that breaks programs into four categories: Heart, Star, Stop Sign, and Money Tree each with its strategic path. -Heart: These programs deliver immense value but come with high costs. The team asked, Can we achieve the same impact with a leaner approach? They restructured staffing and reduced overhead, preserving the program's impact while cutting costs by 15%. -Star: High impact and high revenue programs that beg for investment. The team explored expanding partnerships for a standout program and saw a 30% increase in revenue within two years. -Stop Sign: Programs that drain resources without delivering results. One initiative had consistently low engagement. They gave it a six-month review period but ultimately decided to phase it out, freeing resources for more promising efforts. -Money Tree: The revenue generating champions. Here, the focus was on growth investing in marketing and improving operations to double their margin within a year. This structured approach led to more confident decision-making and, most importantly, brought them closer to their goal of sustainable success. According to a report by Bain & Company, organizations that regularly assess program performance against strategic priorities see a 40% increase in efficiency and long-term viability. Yet, many teams shy away from the hard conversations this requires. The lesson? Every program doesn’t need to stay. Evaluating them through a thoughtful lens of impact and profitability ensures you’re investing where it matters most. What’s a program in your organization that could benefit from this kind of review?

Evaluation is a powerful tool that transforms data into actionable insights, guiding humanitarian programs to enhance their impact in complex environments. This UNFPA Evaluation Handbook provides a comprehensive, step-by-step guide tailored to country-level operations, specifically for Country Programme Evaluations (CPEs). It aims to strengthen evaluation practices by fostering methodological rigor, stakeholder engagement, and strategic utilization of findings, ensuring that evaluations serve as catalysts for positive change. Humanitarian professionals will find this handbook invaluable for its pragmatic approach, blending theory and practice in evaluation. It navigates through each evaluation phase: preparation, design, fieldwork, reporting, and dissemination, outlining tools, templates, and practical advice to support high-quality evaluations. It emphasizes principles such as accountability, adaptation, and a focus on sustainability, aligning evaluations with the UNFPA strategic priorities and the broader Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For those committed to driving evidence-based actions, this handbook is a resource that bridges evaluation theory with actionable strategies, empowering professionals to conduct meaningful evaluations that foster learning, accountability, and informed decision-making in humanitarian settings.

YOU WANT TO BE FUNDED, DO THIS..... Stop Reporting What You Did. Start Reporting What Changed. There is a sentence that appears in thousands of NGO reports every year: "We conducted 12 training sessions reaching 340 beneficiaries." Donors read it. They nod. They move on. And they do not give again. Not because the work was bad. Because the report made it invisible.   The difference between activity and result is the difference between a receipt and a story. An activity tells a donor what you spent their money on. A result tells them what their money did. One satisfies an accountant. The other moves a human being.   Here is what activity reporting sounds like: "In Q3, our team facilitated 8 workshops on menstrual hygiene management, reaching 214 adolescent girls across 6 schools in Kamuli District." Technically accurate. Completely forgettable. Here is what result reporting sounds like: "In Kamuli, 214 adolescent girls received menstrual health support in Q3. By end of term, school attendance among participants rose by 31%. Three girls who had dropped out returned to class. One of them, Aisha, 14, told our field officer: 'I stopped missing Mondays.'" Same programme. Same budget. Completely different impact on the reader.   The formula is simple: What you did → Who it reached → What changed → What it means Apply it to every update, every report, every proposal narrative, and every donor email.   Another example — livelihoods programme: Activity version: "We trained 60 women in Village Savings and Loan methodologies over 10 weeks." Result version: "60 women completed a 10-week savings programme. Within three months, 43 had opened their first savings account. Combined group savings reached UGX 14.2 million. Two women used their savings to pay secondary school fees for children who had been sent home." Numbers. Names. Stakes. That is what donors remember.   Why this matters beyond reporting: Donors talk to each other. When a donor reads a result-driven update, they forward it. They mention your organisation at dinner. They bring you up when a colleague asks where to give. Activity reports stay in inboxes. Result stories travel.   The hard truth: Most NGOs report activities because activities are easy to count. Results require follow-up. They require talking to beneficiaries. They require field officers who ask the second question. But that extra effort is not a burden. It is your fundraising strategy.   Stop handing donors receipts. Give them reasons to believe. Book a Free 30-min Call: Email: eddiejengo@gmail.com WhatsApp: +256 702447756

Reporting in Monitoring and Evaluation: More Than a Deliverable In the development sector, reporting is often seen as the final step of Monitoring and Evaluation. In reality, it is one of its most influential components. Effective M&E reporting does three things. First, it translates field data into clear insights on progress, challenges, and results. Second, it supports accountability by communicating performance transparently to donors, partners, and communities. Third, it enables learning by highlighting what is working, what is not, and why. Good reports go beyond numbers. They explain context, trends, and implications for decision-making. Whether it is a baseline report, progress update, evaluation brief, or dashboard, the purpose remains the same: to inform action. When reporting is timely, concise, and decision-focused, it strengthens program management and improves impact. When it is treated as a formality, its value is lost. Strong M&E systems do not just collect data. They communicate evidence in ways that support better decisions. #MonitoringAndEvaluation #MEL #MEAL #DevelopmentReporting #EvidenceBasedDecisionMaking #Accountability #Learning #DevelopmentPractice #ImpactEvaluation #DevelopmentEffectiveness #EvidenceBasedPolicy #DevelopmentConsulting #NGOs #INGOs #ImpactDrivenDevelopment #DataForGood

Strong evaluation reports are essential for learning, accountability, and better development outcomes. According to guidance from the (former) United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an effective evaluation report should be clear, evidence-based, and designed to inform decision-making. A well-prepared report does more than document findings—it helps organizations understand what works, what does not, and why. Key elements of a strong evaluation report include: • A concise executive summary that highlights purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions • Clear evaluation questions linked to program decisions • Transparent methods and acknowledgement of limitations • Evidence-based findings supported by qualitative and quantitative data • Practical, action-oriented recommendations Equally important is ensuring transparency and learning by sharing evaluation findings widely and integrating them into future program design and strategy. In the field of international development and evaluation, the real value of an evaluation lies not only in the analysis, but in how its insights are used to improve programs and policies. What practices have you found most useful when preparing or reviewing evaluation reports? #Evaluation #MonitoringAndEvaluation #InternationalDevelopment #Learning #USAID #EvalCommunity