Skip to main content

From Draft to Final Report

The requirements for evaluation report structure and content are detailed in the mandatory references for ADS 201:

Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the subject of the evaluation (e.g., strategy, project, activity) and should be readily understood, identifying key points clearly, distinctly and succinctly.
Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people's opinions. Conclusions should clearly be based on the evaluation findings.

Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).

To ensure a high-quality evaluation report, the draft report must undergo a peer review organized by the office that is managing the evaluation. The OU should review the evaluation report against ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report. OUs may also involve peers from relevant Regional and/or Technical Bureaus in the review process as appropriate (see ADS 201sai, Managing the Peer Review of a Draft Evaluation Report).

The draft report must be shared with implementing partners whose projects (or activities) are examined in the evaluation and other organizations who contributed funding to the evaluation or the project/activity being evaluated. Funders, implementers, and members of the evaluation team are to be provided with the opportunity to write a “statement of differences” to address any unresolved differences of opinion to be appended to the final evaluation report.

Additional Links


Guidance and Tools