Evaluation: Evaluation Reports 2.0

Eventually an evaluator must write an evaluation report. While this may seem very apparent, I think how to write one is less apparent, especially how to write an interesting and informative one. A good starting place is to read different evaluation reports to get a feel for the way different authors structure their reports and their writing styles. Unfortunately, what I think you may find is that too often evaluation reports are dry recounts of the methodologies and data collection activities undertaken and their results, with little effort made to pull results together and show what they mean from a combined standpoint. Reports instead include a lot of raw data or data that are not addressed or are contained in overly artful are included as if quantity is supposed to imply quality reporting. Additionally, in many cases, evaluation reports fail to identify, much less answer, the evaluation questions I presume guided the authors' efforts.

Luckily, there are two very good tools out there that are helpful for evaluators of all levels. The first is a checklist developed by Dr. Gary Miron (professor at Western Michigan University and former Chief of Staff at The Evaluation Center at WMU):

http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/checklistmenu.htm

The "Evaluation Report Checklist" as it is called can be used as a "tool to guide a discussion between evaluators and their clients regarding the preferred contents of evaluation reports and a tool to provide formative feedback to report writers". It provides a great outline of the eight main sections in an evaluation report (Title page, Exec. Summary, Table of Contents, Introduction and Background, Methodology, Results, Summary and Conclusion, References) and the various things that should be included in each. This checklist can help evaluators structure their report and identify the strengths and weaknesses of their report. However, as Dr. Miron notes, "Evaluation reports differ greatly in terms of purpose, budget, expectations, and needs of the client". Thus one may need to consider or weight the checkpoints within sections and to weight the relative importance and value of each section when reviewing one's own writing (or someone else's).

However, before you download this checklist (as I hope you will), begin by reading this great article "Unlearning Some of our Social Scientist Habits" by Jane Davidson (independent consultant and evaluator extraordinaire) that, frankly, I think has been overlooked for its valuable contributions.

http://davidsonconsulting.co.nz/index_files/pubs.htm

Among other great advice for evaluators (including models or theories but not using them evaluatively and leaping to measurement too quickly) she addresses these common pitfalls when reporting evaluation findings: (1) reporting results separately by data type or source and (2) ordering evaluation report sections like a Master’s thesis. This entertaining article (especially the parts about evaluation reporting) really makes a case for using the questions that guide the evaluation to guide the report as well. Using the Evaluation Report Checklist in conjunction with some of Dr. Davidson's suggestions has increased the quality and utility of my evaluation reports and should do the same for yours.