REPORT TO CONGRESS ON

EVALUATION STANDARDS AND PRACTICES AT THE 

MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS

A Report to Congress 

in response to

Section 7029(a) of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94)

United States Department of the Treasury

September 2020
Report of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Pursuant to Section 7029(a) of the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94)

September 2020

Executive Summary

As part of its focus on high-quality development projects that achieve tangible results, Treasury

prioritizes evaluation issues in its engagement with the MDBs. Evaluation of development

programs helps to a) provide accountability by assessing program performance and b) support

learning by determining why a program performed as it did and how it can be improved. The

five major multilateral development banks (MDBs) of which the United States is a shareholder –

the World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (AsDB),

the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the Inter-American

Development Bank (IDB) – are widely viewed as standard-setters among development

organizations in employing evaluation to assess and improve their programs.

1

 Treasury, in its

position on the MDBs’ Boards of Directors, aims to refine the MDBs’ already robust evaluation

functions, while using evaluation lessons to improve projects, strategies, and operations. 

Section 7029(a) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (the “FY 20 Act”) requires the 

Secretary of the Treasury to “instruct the United States executive director of each international 

financial institution to use the voice of the United States to encourage such institution to adopt 

and implement a publicly available policy, including the strategic use of peer reviews and 

external experts, to conduct independent, in-depth evaluations of the effectiveness of at least 25 

percent of all loans, grants, programs, and significant analytical non-lending activities in 

advancing the institution’s goals of reducing poverty and promoting equitable economic growth, 

consistent with relevant safeguards, to ensure that decisions to support such loans, grants, 

programs, and activities are based on accurate data and objective analysis[.]” Section 7029(a) 

also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report on steps taken in FY 19 by the U.S. 

Executive Directors (USEDs) and the international financial institutions consistent with 7029(a) 

compared to the previous fiscal year. 

In accordance with the above, this report details actions taken by Treasury, the USEDs, and the 

five aforementioned MDBs in FY 19.

2

 Section I of the report reviews the MDBs’ performance 

on the four central components of section 7029(a). Section II provides an overview of Treasury 

and the USEDs’ (hereafter referred to collectively as Treasury) engagement with the MDBs on 

evaluation issues. The report finds that with input from Treasury, the MDBs maintained high 

standards on all of the four central components of section 7029(a) in FY 19, as follows. 

(i) Adoption and implementation of a publicly available evaluation policy. The IDB completed

the process of formalizing and publishing an evaluation policy for its independent evaluation

1 For an overview of evaluation practices at the MDBs, and discussion of these practices relative to other development 

organizations, see Treasury’s 2014 report to Congress on MDB evaluation. 

2 When referring to a specific MDB, this report is based on data for that MDB’s FY 19, as opposed to the U.S. 

government’s FY 19. The World Bank’s FY 19 ran from July 2018-June 2019; at the other four MDBs, FY 19 was 

the 2019 calendar year. 
office (OVE) to better articulate the office’s role and independence, which an independent

review panel had recommended in previous years. The AsDB also completed the first, analytical

phase of its effort to update the Bank-wide evaluation policy instituted in 2008. 

(ii) Strategic use of peer reviews and external experts. In FY 19, 100% of evaluations

completed by the MDBs’ independent evaluation offices underwent internal review, and, across

the MDBs, an average of 65% underwent external review. The latter is 10 percentage points

lower than FY 18, due to lower rates of external review at the EBRD and no external reviews

conducted at the IDB in FY 19, but still demonstrates strong use of external reviews. The U.S.

Executive Director’s Office encouraged the IDB to expand its use of external peer reviews

during the process of developing a new evaluation policy.

(iii) Conducting independent, in-depth evaluations of the effectiveness of at least 25% of all

loans, grants, programs, and significant analytical non-lending activities. In FY 19, the

average coverage ratio of independent, in-depth evaluations3across the MDBs was 33%, holding

steady from FY 18. Four of the five MDBs maintained coverage levels comfortably above 25%,

but EBRD’s coverage continued the trend of the last two years of remaining below the threshold,

due in part to limited budget available for project evaluations, but also because of strategic

decisions by shareholders regarding the best use of evaluation resources. The U.S. Executive

Director’s Office supported a moderate increase in budgetary resources to allow the EBRD’s

independent evaluation office (EvD) to implement the recommendations of the external report of

the Bank’s evaluation system, including to increase the effectiveness of project evaluations. 

(iv) Ensuring that decisions to support such loans, grants, programs, and activities are based 

on accurate data and objective analysis. Treasury has made learning from evaluation results a 

priority in its engagement with the MDBs, and thus welcomes the MDBs’ progress in this area. 

Notable in FY 19 was the EBRD’s launch of working groups to design better learning processes; 

the AfDB’s commitment to a new learning strategy; and the AsDB’s implementation of its new 

strategic plan to improve knowledge sharing as well as its roll-out of its new project templates to 

explicitly require reference to lessons learned. The AfDB also made notable progress in 

improving the tracking of Management implementation of evaluation recommendations.

Although the operating environment has become more challenging in FY 20 due to COVID-19, 

Treasury continues to engage with the independent evaluation offices of the MDBs on their work 

plans, evaluations, and tools for learning and will use our voice at each institution to maintain 

focus on these four priorities and the effectiveness of each office to contribute to development 

objectives at the MDBs.

I. Assessment of the MDBs’ Performance Consistent with Section 7029(a)

(i) Adoption and Implementation of a Publicly Available Evaluation Policy

3 As explained in section I(iii), Treasury defines an “independent, in-depth evaluation” as an evaluation conducted by 

the independent evaluation office that includes a field visit to the project site. 
Overview. Every MDB now has a publicly-available evaluation policy that details the principal 

responsibilities and governance structure of its independent evaluation office, including its 

relationship with the MDB’s management and the Board of Directors.4 

 

Actions in FY 19. The IDB completed the process (started in FY 18) of instituting a formal

evaluation policy in FY 19. The Board of Directors endorsed that framework in June 2019. The

framework describes the common principles for evaluation, the IDB evaluation system,

evaluation use, evaluation and feedback loops, and evaluation capacity development. The

AsDB also completed the first, analytical phase of its effort to update its new Bank-wide

evaluation policy from 2008. This revision will improve the evaluation policy by: (i) covering

both independent and self-evaluations, (ii) outlining the key principles for evaluation, and (iii)

clarifying roles and accountability.

Priorities for FY 2020. Treasury will continue to engage with the AsDB on its new framework

for the Bank-wide evaluation policy. Furthermore, an independent review of the EBRD

evaluation system in FY 19 suggested a need for revisions to the EBRD evaluation policy; we

will engage closely on these changes. 

(ii) Strategic Use of Peer Reviews and External Experts

Overview. MDB evaluation products receive two types of peer review: (i) internal review by

staff from the evaluation office as well as management and operational staff from the MDB; and

(ii) external review by peers from the evaluation offices of other MDBs, stakeholders from

shareholder governments, and other evaluation experts outside the MDB. Peer review is

considered best practice in the industry and a valuable part of ensuring independence and

integrity in the evaluation process. The majority of significant evaluation products are

independently reviewed by at least one to three external reviewers, including technical experts or

evaluation experts, depending on the complexity of the evaluation product and its topic. 

4 At each MDB, the independent evaluation office is under the oversight of the Board of Directors, to which it 

submits evaluation products, its annual budget and work program, and periodic reports on actions taken by the MDB 

in response to evaluation findings. The Board also appoints the head of the independent evaluation office and 

oversees performance review and remuneration.

Table 1. Evaluations Subject to Peer Review

(FY 19 Coverage Ratio)

MDB

Internal 

Reviews

External 

Reviews

World Bank 100% 100%

AfDB 100% 100%

AsDB 100% 100%

EBRD 100% 27%

IDB 100% 0%

Average 

(non-weighted) 100% 65%
Coverage of Peer Reviews. Treasury finds that 100% of significant evaluations5

that the MDBs’

independent evaluation offices completed in FY 19 underwent internal review, and across the

MDBs, an average of 65% benefitted from external review, down from 75% in FY 18 but above

the FY 17 level of 59%. As Table 1 indicates, there was wide variation in external review

coverage. Three MDBs require external reviews for all major evaluation products, but the IDB

continues to lag behind the other MDBs, with no external reviews completed in FY 19 after

extremely low numbers in FY 18 and none in FY 17. The U.S. Executive Director’s Office has

engaged with the new Director of OVE at the IDB to reinforce that external peer review is in line

with international standards. OVE intends to incorporate greater use of external reviews into

internal OVE procedural guidelines, and it has already begun an effort in 2020 to increase its use

of external peer reviewers. OVE also utilizes external reviews in a number of other ways – from

conducting trainings to providing technical expertise on evaluations and even assessing the

quality of IDB evaluations conducted by offices other than OVE. The EBRD’s use of external

reviews was reduced in FY 19 from six to three, due to the requirements and design of the

specific evaluations conducted; the drop appears more significant than it is due to the low base. 

Chart 1 shows trends in external review coverage across the MDBs in FY 19. 

Priorities for FY 20. Treasury will encourage the Director of IDB OVE to increase the use of

external peer reviews. While Treasury does not believe it is necessary or cost-effective to

conduct external reviews for all significant evaluations, they provide an important function and

should be a priority for all the MDBs. 

5 This includes project evaluations, sector and thematic reviews, country program evaluations, impact evaluations,

corporate evaluations, and evaluation annual reports. It excludes the independent “validations” of self-evaluations

of projects by MDB staff, which are typically only reviewed internally due to their large number.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Average

(non-weighted)

World Bank AfDB AsDB EBRD IDB

Chart 1. MDB External Review Coverage

FY 19 vs. FY 18

2018 2019
(iii) Conducting Independent, In-depth Evaluations of the Effectiveness of at Least 25

Percent of All Loans, Grants, Programs, and Significant Analytical Non-lending

Activities. 

Overview. The MDBs’ independent evaluation offices produce a broad range of evaluation 

products, from project evaluations to assessments of internal corporate processes, and use 

different definitions for what constitutes an independent, in-depth evaluation. For the purposes 

of this report, as with all of Treasury’s previous reports, Treasury defines an “independent, indepth evaluation” as an evaluation conducted by the independent evaluation office that includes 

a field visit to the project site. Field visits can add an additional level of depth to an independent 

evaluation. 

Coverage of Independent, In-Depth Evaluations. Calculating the coverage of independent, indepth evaluations is complicated by the fact that the MDBs’ independent evaluation offices 

produce both evaluations of individual projects and broader evaluations on country programs and 

specific themes and sectors (e.g., fragile states or infrastructure) that include multiple projects. 

To account for this, Treasury calculates each MDB’s overall evaluation coverage ratio by 

dividing the number of projects that received a field visit during an evaluation completed in FY 

19 by the number of projects completed and considered evaluation-ready annually. This 

methodology remains unchanged from last year’s report.

As Table 2 indicates, Treasury finds an average 

coverage ratio of 33% across the MDBs, with all 

MDBs other than the EBRD achieving a solid 

coverage ratio. The EBRD’s coverage ratio 

remains low for the third year in a row, with a 

declining travel budget particularly limiting EBRD

EvD’s ability to conduct site visits. That has

helped lead to greater focus on thematic 

evaluations over project evaluations. During an 

independent review of EvD in FY 19, the 

evaluators identified these budgetary drops as a 

weakness hampering EvD’s effectiveness, and the 

Board of Directors, with U.S. support, agreed that 

EvD should receive a moderate budget increase to allow it to more effectively cover a wider 

range of evaluations.

Chart 2 shows that the MDB average coverage ratio of 33% in 2019 held roughly flat from FY 

18. It also demonstrates that most MDBs remain comfortably above 25%, although there is 

variation in the ratio from year to year due to the changing subject matter of the evaluations each 

department undertakes in a given year.

Table 2. Projects Subject to 

Independent, In-Depth Evaluation

(FY 19 Coverage Ratio)

MDB Coverage Ratio

World Bank 26%

AfDB 63%

AsDB 32%

EBRD 10%

IDB 35%

MDB Average 

(non-weighted) 33%
Priorities for FY 20. Treasury will continue to engage with EBRD EvD to encourage focus on 

in-depth evaluations and will advocate for the independent evaluation offices at the other MDBs

to continue to conduct a large number of in-depth evaluations. 

Qualifying Considerations. Treasury notes that there are some issues with relying on the 

coverage ratio of “independent, in-depth evaluations” as the only or even the main criterion for 

assessing the effectiveness of MDB evaluation systems. First, the criterion does not consider 

valuable monitoring and evaluation work that may not be considered “independent.” For 

example, it excludes impact evaluations, such as randomized control trials, which attempt to 

measure the causal effects of projects using more experimental approaches than other types of indepth evaluations. While rigorously “in-depth” and useful for learning, the independent 

evaluation offices do not conduct most impact evaluations at the MDBs. Second, it does not 

adequately consider institutional evaluations such as process evaluations, thematic evaluations,

or corporate evaluations, which rarely involve project-level assessments and yet have 

considerable impact on the MDBs’ activities and development effectiveness. Third, the number 

of site visits involved in an independent, in-depth evaluation varies based on its subject and type. 

As the MDBs’ independent evaluation offices do different types of evaluations on different 

subjects each year, the number of site visits fluctuates on an annual basis. An MDB’s coverage 

ratio in a given year is thus less telling than the trend line over a longer period of time. 

(iv) Ensuring that Decisions to Support such Loans, Grants, Programs, and Activities Are 

Based on Accurate Data and Objective Analysis

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Chart 2. Coverage of Independent, In-Depth 

Evaluations FY 14-FY 19

World Bank

AfDB

AsDB

EBRD

IDB

MDB Avg,
Overview. The MDBs have robust requirements and systems to facilitate the feedback of 

evaluation results into project design and implementation, strategies, and policies. For project 

design, the MDBs require that evaluation components, such as results measurement frameworks

and the identification of evidence from previous evaluations that was used to inform the design 

of the project, are included upfront in project proposals. The MDBs also have an array of 

feedback loops to improve projects’ implementation in real-time, including regularized progress 

monitoring reports, and they prepare project completion reports. The MDBs have systems that 

track the implementation of recommendations from the independent evaluation offices, thereby 

holding themselves accountable for follow through. 

Actions in FY 19. The MDBs continued to improve learning from evaluation results in FY 19. 

• The World Bank continued to roll out use of a “knowledge package,” introduced in 

2018, which is an automatically curated set of relevant lessons and evidence and other 

relevant knowledge, generated on demand for operational project task team leaders to

use as they design new projects.

• At the AfDB, Management began preparing a new learning strategy and committed

during the African Development Fund replenishment process that this will include 

consideration for how the Bank can more systematically incorporate project completion 

reports, evaluations, and knowledge from other MDBs into project design. 

• The AsDB continued to implement the strategic plan to improve knowledge sharing 

(introduced in 2018). Knowledge management staff and Independent Evaluation 

Department (IED) staff now work together on a tailored outreach and communication 

plan on each evaluation, to improve recommendation uptake. The AsDB also introduced 

new templates for project documents to include a more explicit reference to lessons from 

prior relevant projects. When developing the rationale for a new project, staff now will 

need to reference lessons learned from prior AsDB projects, evaluations, or lessons from 

other development banks. The AsDB’s IED also made progress on its initiative to 

explore the use of an artificial intelligence engine called EVA to improve access and use 

of evaluation knowledge (from both self and independent evaluation) in real time, with 

the pilot scheduled to launch in FY 20. 

• The EBRD created Results Management & Self-Evaluation and Knowledge 

Management Working Groups in 2019 to better incorporate evaluation results into 

project design and strengthen feedback loops in the self-evaluation function.

• At the IDB, OVE continues to disseminate evaluation results in various ways, including 

through events, newsletters, external blogs, and workshops. In the last two years, the 

IDB also has required staff to clearly identify knowledge gaps and include results from 

existing impact evaluations in 100% of the internal quality reviews of Sector Framework 

Documents. This helps Project Teams be aware of both existing evaluation results and 

knowledge gaps, to guide both project design and impact evaluation design.

• All the MDBs continue to promote robust usage of their recommendation tracking 

systems, and the AfDB maintains another system focused on project-relevant lessons 

learned for use in project design. AfDB Management, in particular, undertook a 

significant effort in 2019 to increase the data it provides its system on implementation of 

recommendations, increasing from 37% of recommendations having evidence in March 

2019 to 89% in June 2019. The World Bank is also in the midst of a substantial reform 

of the entire Management Action Record (MAR) process of follow up to 
recommendations by its Independent Evaluations Group (IEG), with the objective to 

move away from the current action plan-based system to one that is more strategic, 

thoughtful, and impactful, and develop a new online system to reflect the new process. 

Priorities for FY 20. Learning will continue to be a top priority in Treasury’s engagement at the 

MDBs on evaluation in FY 20. In particular, Treasury will work closely with the AfDB on the 

development of its learning strategy and the EBRD on revisions to its learning ecosystem, 

including a planned evaluation of learning at EBRD. We will engage via the World Bank

Board’s Committee on Development Effectiveness on the overhaul of the World Bank’s 

recommendation tracking process. Finally, we will closely monitor the AsDB’s artificial 

intelligence pilot to engage in real-time rapid learning innovations, which will be an important 

tool in the context of interventions to address the ongoing rapidly evolving pandemic.

II. Summary of Treasury’s Engagement with the MDBs on Evaluation

Evaluation remained a key component of Treasury’s (and our U.S. Executive Directors’)

engagement with the MDBs in FY 19. Our approach was guided by the four components of

section 7029(a), with a special focus, as mentioned above, on learning. Other key priorities

included helping the independent evaluation offices develop highly strategic work plans—e.g.,

focusing on evaluations in priority areas and that are timed to influence key Board decisions—

and working to ensure the offices retain their independence and are well-resourced. 

Treasury also honed in on specific priorities at each of the MDBs, including the following:

• World Bank - Following the on-boarding of the new head of the IEG, Treasury engaged

on how to improve the system for operationalizing lessons learned from major

evaluations for quicker and more efficient incorporation of best practices. Treasury

supported efforts to improve feedback loops throughout the evaluation process for better

project design and outcomes. Treasury also continued to advocate for strong

independence of the IEG, while also supporting a constructive relationship between the

IEG and World Bank Management. 

• AfDB – Treasury advocated for timely follow through on implementation of evaluation

recommendations, most notably recommendations on quality assurance, policy dialogue,

and the review of the decentralization agenda presented as part of the General Capital

Increase negotiations in FY 19. Treasury also advocated to maintain the independence of

the AfDB’s Independent Development Evaluation (IDEV) department after the hiring of

a new Evaluator General. Finally, Treasury urged Management to include commitments

in the general capital increase and African Development Fund replenishment negotiations

to improve learning at the Bank.

• AsDB – Treasury strongly supported IED’s mandate to evaluate the relevance and results

of the Tenth and Eleventh Replenishments of the Asian Development Fund (AsDF). The

findings and recommendations of this evaluation will play an important role in ensuring

the next replenishment, AsDF-13, incorporates lessons learned. Treasury also pressed

Management to implement the recommendations in IED’s comprehensive review of

AsDB’s support to Pakistan’s energy sector, where AsDB has been, and will continue to

be, the leading development partner. Lastly, AsDB fully mainstreamed its Results Based
Lending modality in FY 19, with IED’s results-based lending evaluation shaping key

elements of the final proposal.

• EBRD – With the completion of the external assessment of the EvD, Treasury enabled

increased budget resources to improve evaluation effectiveness and lead to better

performance on in-depth evaluations. Treasury continued to push for better EBRD

Management follow-up on EvD recommendations as well as adequate emphasis on

learning and performance improvement, as outlined in the Evaluation Policy.

• IDB – Treasury encouraged greater use of external peer reviews and supported the IDB

Group’s adoption of a public evaluation policy in line with its peer institutions. We also

advocated for measures to strengthen the use of evaluation lessons internally. 

Looking ahead, the AsDB, IDB, and EBRD recently completed external assessments of their

evaluation departments. These external assessments, which are conducted from time to time,

provide a valuable opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of the MDBs’ evaluation functions. 

The assessments produce specific recommendations, and Treasury will continue to engage

closely in follow-up discussions to implement appropriate recommendations. Among these

recommendations are the strengthening of the evaluation policy frameworks at AsDB and

EBRD, which will continue to be a top priority for Treasury in FY 20. At the EBRD, these

recommendations also included strengthening the self-evaluation system and adjusting the

budget to allow EvD to work more effectively.