Reporting and Using Evaluation Results Description of Audio

Facilitator notes

This presentation describes how to report on and use results from a program evaluation, and is intended 

for grantees approaching the final stages of the program evaluation cycle.

For this presentation, we have identified a few learning objectives. 

By the end of this presentation, you will be able to: 

• Understand the importance of communicating and disseminating evaluation results to 

stakeholders. 

• Write an evaluation report and become familiar with other key reporting tools. And,

• Determine meaningful programmatic changes based on evaluation findings, and learn how to 

implement them.

Before discussing how to report and use the results generated by an evaluation, it is helpful to 

remember where you are situated in the evaluation process and your options moving forward. 

Remember that evaluations are conducted to gain valuable information about how your program is 

working. When you first began the evaluation planning process, you spent time refining your theory of 

change and logic model, thinking through exactly how your program operates and how it proposes to 

address a problem. Perhaps you then engaged stakeholders in discussion about what you wanted to 

learn about that theory of change, and narrowed down a set of processes or outcomes that you wanted 

to learn more about. You spent time creating research questions that clearly identified those 

information needs, and then matched an evaluation design to those questions to generate valuable 

data. That data was then analyzed to produce your evaluation’s results. 

At this point in the evaluation process, you could simply write up a summary report of the evaluation 

and its results, file it with the relevant funders and stakeholders, and proceed with business as usual. 

But you will have spent a good deal of resources- including money, staff and volunteer time, and 

evaluation expertise- just to engage in a compliance exercise. You also won’t have spread your learning 

to benefit others operating similar programs, and you haven’t utilized a valuable opportunity to 

demonstrate accountability to stakeholders. In addition, you likely haven’t learned too much about your 

program, because you haven’t completed the final step in the evaluation process, which is making 

meaning and sense of those evaluation results. This critical step will allow you to make your program 

stronger. 

Completing this final evaluation step, where meaning is made of data and information, is a hallmark of a 

learning organization. A learning organization is an organization that creates, acquires, and transfers 

knowledge, and modifies its behavior to reflect new insights. These organizations remain relevant and 
effective because they are able to continuously improve their operations, using data to identify areas for 

improvement. Learning about and improving your program requires data, and those data are readily 

available through program evaluation. Evaluating your program, and then using the results to making 

meaningful programmatic improvements, helps your organization to serve more people and to serve 

them better. It also allows you to remain competitive in a scarce funding environment, justify increases 

in scale, scope, and reach, and demonstrates accountability to your stakeholders. Continuous 

assessment and regular evaluation work will enable you to become a learning organization, and will 

potentially produce a sizable evidence base that demonstrates your program’s efficacy.

The bottom line, then, is that evaluation is an important tool to improve your program’s ability to 

address a particular problem most effectively. Completing the evaluation cycle by reporting and using 

the results from your evaluation to make meaningful improvements sets your program apart as a 

forward thinking, impact oriented organization, and brings you closer to achieving your mission.

Before going further into the material, it’s important to note that this webinar will not be covering 

analysis in depth. While it is an important step in the evaluation process that you must complete to 

transform your raw data into evaluation results, it is too detailed a topic to be sufficiently covered 

within this presentation. This course picks up after you have analyzed your data. 

Reporting is the final stage of the evaluation process. It can be thought of as having two broad 

components, the first of which is simply recording and communicating out what you did during the 

course of your evaluation. The second component involves making meaning from your results and 

generating next steps for program improvement. 

Both broad components of reporting serve several complementary purposes: 

• First, reporting documents the steps you took as a part of the evaluation process, including the 

formulation of research questions, implementation of the evaluation design, and analysis of 

data to produce results.

• Second, it provides an opportunity for reflection on results, giving you a chance to bring 

program stakeholders together to identify areas of success or those that need improvement or 

changes. 

• Third, it enables monitoring and tracking progress your program makes towards improving its 

intervention. This is important for demonstrating accountability to beneficiaries, funders, and 

community partners. 

• Finally, it enables your program to demonstrate and communicate the effect it is having on 

beneficiaries to a variety of audiences, including other programs and practitioners, potential 

funders, policymakers, researchers, and members of the community. 

Reporting has four key steps. These are often completed sequentially:

• First, assess information needs and reporting requirements; 
• Then, develop reporting products, such as an evaluation report, briefs, or memos, based on 

those needs and requirements; 

• Next, distribute those products to the various audiences you identified in the first step; 

• And finally, support the use of the products, paying particular attention to ensuring that those 

stakeholders who need to take action based on the evaluation’s results do so. 

With those steps in mind, let’s dig into Step One, assessing information needs and reporting 

requirements. 

When you begin assessing needs and requirements, first, consider how reporting will meet the 

information needs of your program’s stakeholders. Think back to the planning phase of the evaluation 

process. You likely engaged in an intentional process to identify areas of your program that you or 

specific stakeholder groups wanted to learn more about, and selected research questions to reflect that. 

If you engaged stakeholders systematically, such as through an evaluation working group or committee 

meeting, they will have shaped these questions with their needs. The input provided in the planning 

phase and your research questions determine the information needs to be addressed through the 

evaluation. Different individuals or groups may need slightly different information reported back to 

them. 

Second, consider the reporting requirements stipulated by funders. Funders often require reports or 

similar products in order to ensure accountability, and to encourage grantees to engage in a thoughtful 

reflection process on what is working about their program and what isn’t. Ideally, you will already be 

engaged in this reflection process and can build funder’s requirements into that broader conversation. 

Nevertheless, if your funder has clearly stated that a reporting product should be provided, you will 

obviously want to produce that product and ensure that it includes all required information or content

areas. 

An easy way to organize all of these needs is by creating a dissemination plan. A dissemination plan is an 

organizational tool that visually lays out who needs what information, and ties those needs to desired 

reporting formats, timeframe, priority of each need, and roles and responsibilities for producing 

reporting products.

You can begin developing your dissemination plan when you are putting together your evaluation plan, 

since you’ll already be in the process of figuring out what you and other stakeholders want to know 

about your program. It is really never too early to create your dissemination plan, and if you get a jump 

start on its creation, you can proactively build products into an external evaluator’s contract. 

A dissemination plan need be no more complicated than a spreadsheet or word document, but it does 

have several key components you shouldn’t leave out. 

First, list out all the stakeholders or groups that need to see information or results from your evaluation. 

Then, match them with their specific information need, clearly marking which pairings are requirements, 

and recording any deadlines by which time the product needs to be delivered to the stakeholder. Next, 
you can assign a ranking or mark the order of importance for that product to be produced and 

distributed. You can then list out appropriate reporting products for each stakeholder based on the 

information need. Finally, assign a staff member or evaluation partner to have responsibility for creating 

and/or distributing each product to the right stakeholder. Be as specific as you need to be about the 

information in each category; for example, does a funder require a final evaluation report? Or does a 

community partner need their reporting product printed and shipped to them rather than being 

delivered electronically? You might also choose to record the amount and type of resources being 

dedicated to each reporting product, as well as follow up actions that should be taken to ensure 

products are used by stakeholders. 

Just a cautionary note: A program must think creatively about what information might be helpful to 

different groups, even if they haven’t specifically requested it as a “Need.” In many cases it is incumbent 

upon the program to push information out, proactively, whether or not a stakeholder actually thinks 

they need it.

Let’s clarify all that with an example. Since the text on our example plan is so small here, if you’d like to 

see this in bigger text, you can go to tab “E1.1 Partial ex.” in the excel spreadsheet that was sent with 

your pre-work, and you can follow along from there. You can also follow along with the program 

description by turning to pg. 2 of your pre-work word document. 

In your pre-work, you read about a fictional AmeriCorps program that engages members in delivering a 

financial education curriculum to eligible clients. The program has 10 sites in the greater Cincinnati 

region that places members in credit unions and local financial institutions to provide financial 

counseling to low-income individuals, retirees, and young people. Members also assist with financial 

seminars and informational fairs, and recruit experienced financial professionals to serve as volunteers 

in a credit counseling program. Its major funders are AmeriCorps and a small foundation, and it partners 

with local banks and a local social services agency. This program has the AmeriCorps evaluation 

requirements for grantees receiving over $500,000 in grant funds per year, which means they need to 

complete an externally conducted impact evaluation. The evaluation must cover at least 1 program year, 

and needs to have findings ready to report upon recompetition. The evaluation will only focus on the 

program’s financial counseling component, and will explore the following research questions: First, Do 

low-income clients exit the program with increased knowledge of personal finance concepts relevant to 

their needs? Do they know how to use those concepts to address their financial challenges? And second, 

are low-income clients that participate in member-led financial counseling through the program able to 

better manage their personal finances than low-income individuals who did not participate?

Clearly this program has quite a few stakeholders that will be interested in the results of their impact

evaluation. Let’s walk through an example dissemination plan for this evaluation, remembering the 

questions from the last slide: Who (stakeholders), Needs what (information), In what format 

(product/mode), By what time (timeframe), and In what order of importance (priority)? 

We’ll fill in one row for our example, and take AmeriCorps as our stakeholder of interest to complete 

the example. Again, if you’d like to see this in bigger text, you can go to tab “E1.1 Partial ex.” in the excel 

spreadsheet that was sent with your pre-work. 

The first column identifies who needs the information generated by the evaluation, in other words, who 

are the target audiences or stakeholders. 
•For our example here, the target audience is going to be AmeriCorps/CNCS. Remember that 

when complete, the program will want their dissemination plan to list each key stakeholder 

that needs information reported back.

The next column identifies the specific information needs of the stakeholder, and records what they 

need to know. 

•For AmeriCorps, remember the evaluation requirements we mentioned in the program 

description: as a grantee receiving more than $500,000 per year in grant funds, the program 

must conduct an independent impact evaluation using a valid comparison group. In this case, 

CNCS wants to know about the effectiveness of the service intervention being implemented, 

so the information need here could be classified as “effectiveness of the intervention” or 

“evidence for intervention”. 

The next column calls out whether this information is part of a requirement, which is important in 

helping prioritize the order in which the program produces their reporting products. 

•We’ve noted here that the reporting for AmeriCorps is part of a requirement. 

The fourth column identifies the timeline for reporting back to the stakeholder, or the deadline by which 

the reporting product is due.

•CNCS’ evaluation requirements for all grantees stipulate that the final evaluation report must be 

submitted at the end of the 3 year grant cycle at the time of recompetition for funds. It’s 

important for the program to note this so they can ensure there is sufficient time to 

complete and edit the reporting product before submission. 

•Related to deadlines, the next column notes the priority level of the product. Here, the program 

has marked it a high priority since CNCS is a major funder and the product is tied to a grant 

requirement. 

The next two columns identify the type of product and the medium they will use to disseminate 

findings.

•Since CNCS’ information needs concern “evidence for the intervention”, this leaves a few 

different media open for reporting. But considering that CNCS stipulates that grantees must 

submit a final evaluation report when they recompete, a written, final evaluation report is 

the best product for to develop for this audience. 

Note that the program has also included columns in this plan to record who is responsible for preparing 

the product (an external evaluator), the type and amount of resources available for the product 

($5,000). There is also a column noting who is responsible for distributing the product (staff member 

who writes grants). If you are a larger organization, you might have a communications staff member 

that is responsible for all of this, or who will manage coordination. If you are a smaller organization or 

have a smaller number of staff, you may have to split up reporting tasks amongst staff responsible for 

regular programming. Any number or combination of staff can be responsible for completing reporting 

tasks, and keep in mind that it may look different for any given organization depending on size and 

resource availability. 

The program has also included a space to record follow-up activities that should take place after the 

products are distributed. Follow up to ensure evaluation results are reviewed and used by others 

maximizes your investment, helps others make informed decisions, and demonstrates accountability 

and transparency, so consider investing some time connecting back with your stakeholders. In this 

example, you can see that the program plans to discuss the results of the evaluation with their program 

officer. They also are going to work with CNCS’ office of research and evaluation to complete a summary 

brief of their evaluation, which will be posted on CNCS’ newly created Evidence Exchange. 
On your handout, we’ve included a complete example dissemination plan for the program so you can 

see what this might look like fully fleshed out. This is on tab “E1.2 Complete ex.”. A template is also 

available for your use on tab “E1.3 Blank Template”.

[Pause for questions]

Now that you understand the why and how of assessing information needs and requirements, and are 

familiar with a way to organize the process, let’s talk about Step Two in the reporting process, the 

various reporting products you can develop. 

There are four basic types of reporting products you can develop.

First are written products, which many of you are already developing based on your evaluation work. At 

a minimum, every evaluation you conduct should have an evaluation report. This should be written by 

the individual or team that conducts the evaluation, so if you’re using an external evaluator, that is 

something that should be a task and deliverable listed in the contract. This can serve as a base for 

creating additional “derivative” products. 

You can also create presentations to report on your evaluation, or you might choose to create visuals or 

graphics. Supplementary social media, and other creative works are other types of products you can 

create once you’ve completed your final evaluation report. 

Some reporting products lend themselves to communicating certain types of information better than 

others. For example, a memo may describe a programmatic change based on your evaluation results in a 

way most accessible to program staff, due to the nature of a memo’s length and brevity. An executive 

summary, on the other hand, might better address a potential funder’s information needs by giving a 

comprehensive yet succinct description of the evaluation’s process and results.

In this webinar we are focusing more on written products, particularly the evaluation report. The rest 

are important but you can investigate them more on your own. At the end of the presentation we’ve 

suggested some sources that might be helpful to consult.

Written evaluation products are composed of narrative and textual descriptions, explanations, and 

recommendations regarding the evaluation and its findings. At a minimum, you should plan to write an 

evaluation report. The purpose of a written evaluation report is to be an objective documentation and 

presentation of the evaluation’s methods and findings. Derivative products can then be tailored for 

other communications purposes. 

Depending on the particular stakeholder, their information needs, and available resources as outlined in 

your dissemination plan, you could create a number of products based on your evaluation report. For 

example, these could include executive summaries, which are very short summaries of the evaluation’s 

purpose, methods, and findings. It could also include memos, or other written pieces intended to quickly 

communicate specific findings or actions to take based on the evaluation’s results. Briefs focus in-depth 

on a particular topic covered in your evaluation, and can, for example, be technically focused, 

practitioner focused, or policy focused. Academic papers, conference papers, white papers, and working 

papers can connect your evaluation and its findings to a relevant scholarly community. Finally, you can 
create other supplementary communications products like press releases and media documents, 

newsletters, or blog posts based on the contents of the evaluation report. Note that you can also 

develop some of these derivative products from interim reports, but be sure to gauge whether such 

preliminary results will meet the information needs of the consumers receiving the specific product. 

Be wary that short communications like memos and email blasts can lead to misinterpretation of 

findings due to lack of contextualizing information. Pay careful attention to wording to avoid misleading 

or misstating results. It’s always a good idea to offer stakeholders easy access to the full, final evaluation 

report so they can investigate details of the evaluation’s methodology and implementation for 

themselves. However, you should not necessarily expect the final report to be read in its entirety, so any 

information presented in other formats should be accurate and complete on its own. 

A complete evaluation report contains the following three elements: an introduction to the project, a 

description of the evaluation design and methods, and a statement of the findings and results. You can 

use some of the information from your evaluation plan to populate the evaluation report. For example, 

the program description, evaluation design, and methods can be pulled from the plan and enhanced 

with a level of detail appropriate for the report. 

The report should begin with a comprehensive but succinct introduction to the evaluation project. The 

introduction frames the purpose and goals of the evaluation, and explains why the project is being 

undertaken. It also provides the necessary contextual information to understand subsequent sections of 

the report. The introduction should begin with a description of the evaluation’s purpose and research 

questions, as these set the stage for the entire project and clarify the choice of evaluation approach and 

design. Next, you should give background on the program and its theory of change and include detailed 

information on the program component being evaluated. Do not assume that the reader will be familiar 

with your program or the component under study. At this point, it may also be helpful to mention 

historical context or any environmental influences that affect the way the program works or that might 

have bearing on the evaluation. The next step is to identify and describe the target population being 

studied. You may also choose to identify stakeholders and audiences for the evaluation’s results. This 

should be followed by a brief review of relevant past research or evaluation work done by your 

program. You can also include past research and evaluation done by other researchers or similar 

programs if it is relevant to the program component being evaluated. Finally, you’ll conclude the 

introduction by outlining the structure of the remainder of the report. 

The next section of the evaluation report describes the evaluation design and methods. You can begin 

by restating the research questions to remind the reader of the purpose of the evaluation, and then 

proceed to describe the evaluation approach being used (i.e. process or impact). You should also explain 

why that particular design is being used. This is an appropriate place to list funder requirements or other 

important constraints that shaped the choice of evaluation approach and design. Remember that your 

evaluation approach and design flow from your research questions, and it is a good idea to point out in 

your report the strengths of the particular evaluation design in addressing a particular research 

question. 

Next, you will need to describe the data collection methods used, including details about how data 

collection was implemented, the timing of the activities, and any noteworthy challenges encountered 
during the process that could impact the data gathered. You should clearly list and describe your data 

sources (e.g. administrative records) and, if studying multiple populations, match data collection 

activities to their relevant populations. Finally, you should state study limitations, especially those that 

arise from the evaluation design and its implementation. You should also mention the strengths of your 

study. 

The final section of the evaluation report should state the findings and results of the evaluation. This 

section should begin by presenting the results of analyses conducted on the data you collected. 

A technical appendix can help highlight the most important results in the body of the report by moving 

additional, important technical information to the back of the report. This will allow you to present a 

few key graphs, tables, or charts in the body of the report, and preserve additional information for the 

reader who wishes to seek it out. It is very important that you present all findings, positive, null, and 

negative, in the report. It is not appropriate to only present the most favorable results.

Be sure to label all charts, tables, and graphs that appear in this section. Check that all axes on graphs 

and charts are labeled, that tables have appropriate headers, and that all items have titles and captions. 

Whether commissioning an external evaluation or conducting one internally, credibility is a key 

component of a quality evaluation report. Damaging the objectivity of an evaluation means that findings 

lose integrity and believability. Because your program has an interest in seeing positive results, if efforts 

to obscure, change, or eliminate findings are detected in the report, you risk compromising the report’s 

validity. Loss of trust in reported findings can seriously damage relationships with stakeholders, and can 

jeopardize funding or opportunities to partner or scale up. 

Fortunately, there are steps you can take to ensure the credibility of your evaluation report. First, in 

your evaluation report, discuss the limitations of your study, including those related to methodology and 

implementation. This provides critical context as to why a particular result may have come about, and 

helps readers appropriately interpret findings. Methodological limitations are present in every 

evaluation design and relate to the specific shortcomings of a given design. For example, an outcomes 

study without a comparison group cannot demonstrate causality. Limitations that arise from how the 

evaluation was executed are implementation limitations, and can occur during data collection or 

analysis. Implementation limitations related to data quality and access to data sources are especially 

important to discuss. Examples could include how the randomization procedure was applied if a 

randomized control trial was conducted, or presence of low response rates on surveys.

Generalizability, or the ability for findings from the evaluation to be applied or extrapolated beyond the 

program being studied, is also important to report. Depending upon your evaluation design and 

implementation, findings may or may not be appropriate to generalize to the whole program, to another 

site, to the population served, or to other, similar populations. Again, this affects how results can be 

interpreted by others, and importantly, how findings may be used to improve the program or shape 

other programs. 
Don’t shy away from discussing negative or null findings. Null findings are findings of “no effect” or no 

change. They do not always indicate that your program is not working. Sometimes null findings are 

simply a result of a weakness in the evaluation’s design; for example, the sample may have been too 

small. Again, negative or null findings from one program evaluation do not mean that your program isn’t 

working or should be shut down! They simply point to areas where positive change can or should be 

made. Remember that withholding or obscuring such findings invites suspicion and jeopardizes the 

objectivity of your evaluation. 

Finally, hold recommendations until the end of the report. This allows the reader to come to their own 

conclusions based on your objective presentation of the analysis and results. You should also maintain a 

neutral tone throughout the report to avoid the appearance of shaping or influencing conclusions. 

Overall, maintaining objectivity and transparency in reporting will ensure that readers can trust the 

report and rely on the findings. 

As we’ve mentioned before, once you’ve written a solid evaluation report, you can create additional 

products to communicate results and findings to different stakeholders. 

Presentations are effective ways to communicate key points about your evaluation and its findings, and 

may use posters, slide decks such as PowerPoint, or webinar technology, depending on the target 

audience and venue. They are also a great way to interact with stakeholders about the results and give 

an opportunity for discussion. It is important to remember that an effective presentation balances the 

use of speaking, visuals, and text, and does not overwhelm an audience with too much information at 

too fast a pace. Community meetings, conference presentations, community groups or meetings, or 

panels are other types of presentations to consider, depending on the types of stakeholders you are 

trying to reach, and the amount and type of information you wish to present.

Visuals and graphics can be stand alone products or can be part of written reports or presentations. 

They are especially effective at highlighting trends or patterns, especially when you have a large amount 

of data. Use visuals and graphics selectively, as too many can distract readers or viewers from your 

broader message. 

Social media, such as Twitter and Facebook are excellent tools to generate interest in your evaluation or 

communicate key findings. Be especially wary of wording when posting results through social media, as 

these modes do not accommodate the context or background information on the evaluation that is 

necessary to properly interpret findings. You can also consider using other creative products like photo 

reports, poetry, or other visual arts to communicate about your evaluation. Just be sure that the 

method you choose makes sense for your target audience and the findings you wish to present. 

Depending on the type of evaluation you conduct, you may wish to create a public use dataset, which 

has been stripped of any personally identifiable information. These datasets can contribute to further 

research by other programs or scholars on your intervention or a related topic. 

 
Finally, when producing any written or visual product, keep in mind that potential consumers with visual 

or auditory disabilities will want to be able to access findings. Be sure to format reporting products to 

work with visual or auditory accessibility software, especially if posting online. 

[Pause for questions]

As you’ll recall, Step Three in the reporting process involves disseminating your reporting products. 

Once you’ve completed your evaluation report and any derivative products you’ve decided to create, 

you can distribute them to program stakeholders according to your dissemination plan. 

Since we’ve already reviewed what this plan should cover and what an example might look like, let’s 

proceed to Step Four in the reporting process, ensuring and supporting use of findings by stakeholders.

While reporting serves the purpose of documenting what was done during the evaluation, it also is the 

natural juncture in the evaluation cycle for figuring out what your evaluation results suggest in terms of 

meaningful program improvement. It is a convenient time because you will have all of the information 

you need to review and make decisions with in one central and easily accessible location. As we 

mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, purposefully examining results and creating an action 

plan to implement improvements based on those insights is the critical step that enables continuous 

improvement and that makes a program a learning organization. Using evaluation results for action and 

improvement means that a program is being accountable to its theory of change, is examining decisionmaking on policies and program components, and is drawing lessons for program improvement. 

To put this into practice, it’s helpful to divide the process into two stages: first, you will identify the 

program components that need to be improved or that are working well based on your evaluation 

results, and second, you will develop and implement a plan for enacting appropriate programmatic 

changes. 

Again, keep in mind that this is all taking place after the evaluation report is finalized. Even if you are 

conducting the evaluation internally, it is important not to reflect on the meaning of results or begin 

brainstorming changes within the final evaluation report. While it’s fine to suggest areas for future 

research or state new questions that have arisen during the completion of the evaluation, remember 

that making conjectures about findings within the evaluation report can diminish objectivity and 

credibility. In the next few slides, we’ll suggest some ways to go about documenting and tracking these 

ideas and associated improvements. 

As we just mentioned, in stage one, you will identify the program components that need to be improved 

based on your evaluation results. So how do you find program components that need to be improved? A 

good first step is to look back to your research questions. At the beginning of the evaluation process, 

research questions were created to guide the evaluation and ensure that it produced the information 

you needed about your program. You can try pairing each research question to relevant results from 

your analysis. These results are the “answers” to your research questions. Consider what these answers 

are saying: given what you’ve recorded in your theory of change and logic model, are the results 

expected? Or is there something surprising or unusual you are finding that deviates from the logic 
model? Did the evaluation identify interesting patterns or trends? If the result you are seeing is not in 

line with what is expected from your logic model and theory of change, you should flag that component 

for possible improvement. This includes unexpected positive results, as they could indicate something 

that should be expanded, scaled, or further developed. We will present a detailed example in a few 

slides to make this process even clearer. 

Throughout this process, keep in mind how the evaluation was implemented. If there were challenges or 

flaws that mitigate the finding, the specific results suggesting change may be due to how the evaluation 

was implemented rather than how the program is actually performing. In any case, if multiple sources 

support or corroborate a flagged finding, you will have conclusive evidence that a change needs to be 

made. Regardless, do bear in mind that one high quality evaluation finding can be all that is needed to 

support or acknowledge a programmatic improvement. 

Once you’ve identified the program components that need to be improved you will need to articulate 

how, specifically, they will be improved. This could involve a change to the program design or 

implementation, to the services that are delivered, to the internal staffing, or to partnering, for example. 

This is an appropriate time to engage relevant stakeholders in discussing the results, and obtaining input 

into the improvement process. Options for convening stakeholders include conference calls, in-person 

meetings, or online presentations. Keep in mind that you may need to create specific derivative 

products from the final evaluation report to facilitate these discussions. Memos or PowerPoint 

presentations are often helpful for focusing conversation and documenting proceedings. When 

brainstorming possible improvements, actions, or changes, it is important to set discussion parameters 

to ensure that realistic, actionable solutions are generated. Any change that could reasonably be 

implemented should be actionable, specific, and able to be accomplished within a realistic timeframe. 

Relatedly, make sure that the scale and scope of the change suggested matches that of the evidence 

generated by the evaluation findings. Again, we’ll go over an example in a few slides to make this more 

clear. 

Once you have identified the parts of your program you want to improve, you can ensure follow through 

by developing an action plan. While this doesn’t have to be a formal document, it helps to have a record 

of the decisions made. This plan should include an “owner” or “owners” that will carry out the changes. 

You should set milestones and identify key dates for when certain actions must take place or be 

complete. It also helps to identify the types and amount of resources, such as money or staff time, you 

will need to carry out these activities. Once this plan is developed, you can invite stakeholders to review 

it. This will help hold your organization accountable, and demonstrates transparency to current and 

potential funders. Along with creating a feeling of stakeholder ownership in the program, it can help you 

recruit partners and additional resources needed to successfully implement your plan for change. 

Once you have identified the parts of your program you want to improve, you can ensure follow through 

by developing an action plan. While this doesn’t have to be a formal document, it helps to have a record 

of the decisions made. This plan should include an “owner” or “owners” that will carry out the changes. 

You should set milestones and identify key dates for when certain actions must take place or be 

complete. It also helps to identify the types and amount of resources, such as money or staff time, you 
will need to carry out these activities. Once this plan is developed, you can invite stakeholders to review 

it. This will help hold your organization accountable, and demonstrates transparency to current and 

potential funders. Along with creating a feeling of stakeholder ownership in the program, it can help you 

recruit partners and additional resources needed to successfully implement your plan for change. 

Developing and implementing your action plan for improvement demonstrates accountability and builds 

stakeholder trust in your organization. It also completes the evaluation process, bringing a close to the 

particular evaluation project. But, there is much more to be gained from your evaluation findings. An 

evaluation can pay dividends long into the future in a few key ways. 

First, every time your program conducts and completes an evaluation, information about program 

effectiveness compounds, providing a robust picture of how and why your program is or is not achieving 

its goals as detailed in your theory of change. This accumulation of programmatic knowledge gathered 

systematically from evaluation is known as an evidence base. This evidence base is valuable to your 

organization as it strives to improve services for constituents, to similar organizations as they improve 

their own program models, and to funders and policymakers as they attempt to direct scarce resources 

to the most effective organizations. 

Second, evaluations can be used strategically as part of a long term research agenda. A long term 

research agenda is simply a plan for a series of evaluations, completed over a longer time horizon, that 

build progressively towards an evaluation goal or broad research question about a program’s 

effectiveness. It requires moving beyond thinking of evaluations as one-time projects that exist in 

isolation. Instead, evaluations produce information that inform subsequent evaluations, or increase the 

organization’s capability to conduct a more rigorous evaluation. This change in thinking can be difficult, 

and often requires an intentional culture change within organizations. This effort is worthwhile, though, 

as a robust long term research agenda could save your organization a significant amount of time and 

resources, and can provide the right types of information at the right times in the life cycle of the 

program. 

Finally, in the long term, an evaluation also contributes critical information for continuous improvement. 

Reviewing the information provided by evaluation can help an organization set goals, measure progress 

towards meeting those goals, and make decisions based on the data gathered. It also naturally raises 

additional questions about program performance, which feeds back into the cycle of evaluation as newly 

proposed research questions. This feedback cycle makes possible the continuous program improvement 

that is characteristic of a learning organization. 

Let’s review what we’ve covered in the last few slides with an example. We’ll use the fictional financial 

education program from your pre-work, and use some hypothetical findings from their impact 

evaluation to identify areas for change and develop an action plan for improvement. For the purposes of 

our example, we’re going to suppose that the program conducted a randomized control trial 

supplemented with a review of program documents. 

Let’s suppose that the program ran their RCT and just received their final evaluation report from their 

external evaluator. In the findings section of the report, it is reported that there was a positive, 
significant difference between the treatment and control groups with regards to management of 

personal finances six months after the end of their participation in the program. The program is pleased, 

since according to their logic model and theory of change, they expect that a medium term outcome of 

the program is that clients will apply the knowledge gained through the counseling program to make 

significant progress towards solving a financial challenge. Since the findings show that clients are in fact 

making progress towards solving a financial challenge, as compared to those not in the program, the 

answer to the research question posed at the beginning of the evaluation supports the intervention as 

described in the logic model and theory of change. 

This finding is definitely something the program wants to investigate further, because it could have 

implications for additional programming they could provide in the future. Specifically, the positive 

results indicating an effective intervention at the current sites helps make a case for increased program 

scale and reach. They look back to the evaluation report to see if the evaluator noted any important 

findings from the document review portion of the evaluation which could speak to what could be driving 

the positive result. The evaluator has reviewed the program’s member activity logs, and has noted that 

there is a high level of consistency amongst the type, duration, and quantity of service being provided by 

members. 

Since the program also has performance measures data available on these member activities, they 

consult the data to triangulate, or corroborate, that finding. The performance measures data reveals 

that members are completing the targeted number of sessions with each client, and are spending an 

appropriate amount of time with each client, as is defined in the program’s curriculum. 

With this contextualizing information, the program re-examines their theory of change and logic model. 

Because there is evidence that outcomes are being achieved, and that the curriculum is being 

implemented as designed, the program feels confident that the intervention is working as specified. In 

fact, it seems to be working well enough and with enough consistency across sites that they could 

expand the program to other sites with characteristics similar to those in the study. 

Even though the study revealed evidence of an effective intervention, there are still some positive 

improvements that can be made. First, the program can use the results to emphasize to sites the 

importance of following the curriculum with fidelity, and the importance of ensuring that members 

maintain a certain level of consistency in service provision across clients. The results also support the 

program’s efforts to maintain rigorous data collection and performance measurement systems, so 

program management will want to continue to invest in these capabilities. And finally, program 

management now has solid evidence to make a case for expanding the program and for obtaining 

additional staff and funds to do so. 

Implementing these suggested improvements could be a lot of work, so again, it’s important that the 

program puts together an action plan for improvement. Remember, the plan would need to specify who 

will carry out the improvements; by when they will take place, and for how long; what resources (i.e., 

money, staff) are needed to carry out these changes; and who can be an advocate or partner in change. 

So, if the program decides it wants to emphasize to sites the importance of ensuring consistency of 
service provision across clients, they may decide to hold an all-site training day for members and staff. In 

this example, that part of the plan for improvement would note that the program management would 

be in charge of arranging and managing the meeting, and developing meeting materials; a convenient 

date would be set aside for everyone to come together; money for meeting space and materials, plus a 

sufficient number of staff would be allocated; and site staff would be recruited as partners in the 

training. 

Given the implications of the evaluation findings, the program may want to enhance their dissemination 

plan presented earlier in the webinar. A good addition might be a presentation at the all-site training 

day covering the evaluation results and implications, or wider distribution of the executive summary to 

members, potential new site partners, and additional funders and individual donors. This is also the time 

for the program to think about their next evaluation, and consider what new questions were raised as a 

result of this current evaluation. With their desire to expand services to other sites, an appropriate 

follow up evaluation could be an implementation study measuring fidelity to the program model at the 

new sites. The program will want to think strategically about future use of evaluation resources, and 

would benefit from compiling a long term research agenda to organize their future evaluation work 

around an ultimate evaluation goal. 

At this point, you can see how our hypothetical financial education program has used its evaluation 

results to make an improvement to their program, and to move towards serving more people, better. 

Additionally, the study has also enhanced the program’s evidence base, increased accountability to 

stakeholders, improved program operations, and contributed important learnings to other programs 

operating similar interventions. 

To wrap up, let’s reiterate a few key points to remember as you report and use evaluation results. 

First, reporting should include a variety of different products, for different audiences. Be sure to match 

the right reporting product with each audience’s information needs and requirements. 

Next, use a dissemination plan to organize the different reporting activities you’ll need to engage in 

during the course of reporting your evaluation results. Start this plan early on in the evaluation process 

to be sure resources are invested effectively, and that all important reporting deadlines are met. 

Next, be sure to maintain credibility and objectivity in the evaluation report by discussing study 

limitations, generalizability, and negative or null findings if they exist. Also, hold interpretations and 

recommendations until the end of the report, and avoid inserting speculation and conjecture regarding 

results. 

Finally, review results against your research questions, logic model, and theory of change to identify 

areas for improvement or scale up. Organize the subsequent improvement activities in a plan for 

implementing change.
For more information on evaluation, please go to the National Service Resource Page on 

Nationalservice.gov/resources. We also highly recommend visiting the Community Toolbox, which was 

used extensively in preparing the first half of this presentation. 

Does anyone have any questions?