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, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) 

United States Department of the Treasury 

October 2019 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) 

October 2019 

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 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, 2019 (the “FY 19 Act”) requires the 

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

financial institution to seek to require that such institution adopts and implements 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 18 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 18.2 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)’s engagement with the MDBs on 

evaluation issues. The report finds that with input from Treasury, the MDBs strengthened their 

performance on three of the four central components of section 7029(a) in FY 18, as follows. 

(i) Adoption and implementation of a publicly available evaluation policy. The World Bank 

completed the process of revising the mandate for its independent evaluation office (IEG) to 

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 18, as opposed to the U.S. 

government’s FY 18. The World Bank’s FY 18 ran from July 2017-June 2018; at the other four MDBs, FY 18 was 

the 2018 calendar year. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

better articulate the office’s role and independence, and finalized a World Bank-wide evaluation 

framework. The IDB also agreed to consider the recommendation of an independent review 

panel of the evaluation function of IDB to formalize and publish an evaluation policy. 

(ii) Strategic use of peer reviews and external experts. In FY 18, 100% of evaluations 

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

the MDBs, an average of 75% underwent external review. The latter is 16 percentage points 

higher than FY 17, due to mandatory external peer review implemented in FY 18 at the World 

Bank and AfDB. 

(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. In FY 18, the 

average coverage ratio of independent, in-depth evaluations3 across the MDBs was 34%. Four 

of the five MDBs maintained coverage levels comfortably above 25%, but EBRD’s coverage— 

while significantly improved from FY 17—hovered just below 25%. Treasury will work with 

the EBRD to encourage adequate focus on in-depth evaluations in FY 19. 

(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 18 was the AsDB’s completion and implementation of a strategic knowledge 

management plan, the World Bank’s roll-out of on-demand “knowledge packages” to share 

relevant recommendations with project teams during the design phase, and greater use of 

learning events across the MDBs. 

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

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

Overview. Each MDB, except the IDB, 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 The IDB does not yet 

have a formal evaluation policy, but its governing documents do include pronouncements 

governing its evaluation function. 

Actions in FY 18. The World Bank completed the process (started in FY 17) of revising its 

evaluation policy in FY 18. Specifically, the World Bank revised the mandate for the IEG and 

developed a World Bank-wide evaluation framework. The Board of Directors’ Committee on 

Development Effectiveness endorsed that framework in June 2018. The framework describes 

the common principles for evaluation, the WBG evaluation system, evaluation use, evaluation 

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.

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and feedback loops, and evaluation capacity development. The framework will be 

operationalized through a mandatory Directive on Evaluation. In addition, in FY 18, the IDB 

began the process of responding to the independent panel recommendation that it adopt a 

comprehensive evaluation policy. 

Priorities for FY 19. Treasury will advocate for the IDB to formalize a comprehensive 

evaluation policy, comparable to peer institutions, and publish it on the website of the 

independent evaluation office (OVE). Treasury will also engage with the AsDB as it undertakes 

an analytical effort to develop a new Bank-wide evaluation policy that will (i) cover both 

independent and self-evaluations, (ii) outline the key principles for evaluation, and (iii) clarify 

roles and accountability. 

(ii) Strategic Use of Peer Reviews and External Experts 

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

peer reviewers 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. 

Coverage of Peer Reviews. Treasury finds that 

100% of significant evaluations5 that the 

MDBs’ independent evaluation offices 

completed in FY 18 underwent internal review, 

and across the MDBs, an average of 75% 

benefitted from external review, up from 59% 

in FY 17. As Table 1 indicates, there was wide 

variation in external review coverage, with the 

IDB continuing to lag behind the other MDBs, 

although its performance, too, improved from 

FY 17. The new Director of OVE at the IDB 

recognizes that external peer review is in line 

with international standards and intends to 

incorporate greater use of external reviews into 

internal OVE procedural guidelines. 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. 

Table 1. Evaluations Subject to Peer Review 

(FY 18 Coverage Ratio) 

MDB 

Internal 

Reviews 

External 

Reviews 

World Bank 100% 100% 

AfDB 100% 93% 

AsDB 100% 92% 

EBRD 100% 75% 

IDB 100% 13% 

Average 

(non-weighted) 100% 75% 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chart 1 shows that external review coverage across the MDBs improved in FY 18, driven by 

increases in external reviews at nearly every MDB, and continued high coverage at AsDB. The 

AfDB’s Independent Development Evaluation office (IDEV) made it mandatory in FY 18 for all 

significant evaluations (but not comparative studies) to undergo external peer review, and the 

World Bank’s new guidelines also require external peer review for all major and meso6 

evaluations. 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

100% 

120% 

Average 

(non-weighted) 

World Bank AfDB AsDB EBRD IDB 

Chart 1. MDB External Review Coverage 

FY 17 vs. FY 18 

2017 2018 

Priorities for FY 19. 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. 

(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 Treasury’s previous reports, 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. 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. 

6 Meso evaluations address smaller, more focused, just-in-time evaluation issues than major evaluations. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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

methodology remains unchanged from the FY 18 report. 

As Table 2 indicates, Treasury finds an average 

coverage ratio of 34% across the MDBs, with all 

MDBs other than the EBRD achieving a solid 

coverage ratio. As expected last year, the EBRD’s 

coverage ratio rose significantly from an 

anomalously low level of 3% in FY 17 that had 

been due to a confluence of factors, including the 

types of evaluations completed (e.g., corporate 

evaluations that do not require site visits) and 

timing of report issuance. However, while coming 

close, it still did not exceed 25%. From 

discussions with staff from the EBRD’s 

independent evaluation office (EvD), this reflects 

growth in the number of projects EBRD is 

undertaking relative to the small size of EvD. In addition, a declining travel budget for EvD has 

limited its ability to conduct site visits. As a result, it has focused more on thematic evaluations, 

which we believe to be a reasonable and valuable use of its scarce resources. 

Table 2. Projects Subject to 

Independent, In-Depth Evaluation 

(FY 18 Coverage Ratio) 

MDB Coverage Ratio 

World Bank 39% 

AfDB 49% 

AsDB 31% 

EBRD 20% 

IDB 31% 

MDB Average 

(non-weighted) 34% 

Chart 2 shows that the MDB average coverage ratio of 34% average declined slightly in 2018, 

from 43% in FY 17, due largely to declines from the extremely high rates of evaluation at AfDB 

and AsDB in previous years. 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. 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Chart 2. Coverage of Independent, In-Depth Evaluations 

FY 14-FY 18 

World Bank 

AfDB 

AsDB 

EBRD 

IDB 

MDB Avg, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priorities for FY 19. 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 can 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 

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 prepare project completion reports. And 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 18. The MDBs continued to improve learning from evaluation results in FY 18. 

The World Bank introduced a “knowledge package,” which is an automatically curated set of 

relevant lessons and evidence and other relevant knowledge, generated on demand for 

operational project task team leaders for use as input in the design of new projects. EBRD also 

created knowledge packages from a subset of lessons learned, increased the number of its 

consultations with management to incorporate evaluation results into sector strategies, and also 

developed a synthesis of evaluation results at the country level for Board of Directors’ use during 

consultation visits. At the AfDB, IDEV evaluated the Quality at Entry, and Quality of 

Supervision and Exit of Bank Group operations, and Quality Assurance across Project Cycle, 

and worked with AfDB Management so that its recommendations informed a new Quality 

Assurance Implementation Plan. IDEV also held five learning workshops for AfDB staff to 

promote awareness of gender-related, sector-relevant, and project-specific recommendations 

from completed evaluations. The AsDB’s independent evaluation office (IED) finalized and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

worked to implement its overarching strategic plan to improve how it shares evaluation 

knowledge, with a dedicated team working with IED to engage on outreach and communication 

of recommendations. All the MDBs continued to broaden coverage of their recommendation 

tracking systems (recently deployed at AfDB and EBRD), and IDEV maintains another system 

focused on project-relevant lessons learned for use in the project design phase. The IDB, in 

particular, upgraded its recommendation tracking system and used this data to provide timely 

feedback to Management during the development of action plans and to validate progress. 

Priorities for FY 19. Learning will continue to be a top priority in Treasury’s engagement at the 

MDBs on evaluation in FY 19. In particular, Treasury will work closely with the World Bank as 

it refines the recommendation tracking processes and systems to ensure robust accountability 

over the longer-term. Treasury will also continue its efforts to strengthen incentives and 

requirements to incorporate results from previous evaluations in project design. Treasury will 

engage with the AsDB’s IED on an innovative pilot project to explore the use of cognitive search 

to improve access and use of evaluation knowledge (from both self and independent evaluation). 

Finally, Treasury will continue to work with the AfDB’s IDEV to expand the scope of the 

studies whose recommendations are captured in the tracking system. 

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 18. 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 -- Treasury supported the implementation of the new evaluations mandate 

and roll-out of the knowledge packages and engaged in the hiring process for the new 

Director General for Evaluation of the IEG. 

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

recommendations, most notably recommendations on quality assurance and policy 

dialogue, and urged Management to prioritize hiring a new Evaluator General. Treasury 

provided significant guidance to IDEV in the design of an evaluation of the AfDB’s 

Development and Business Delivery Model, a key institutional reform initiative. 

• AsDB – Treasury used its strong support of the Results-Based Lending evaluation to 

push reforms as AsDB mainstreams this instrument. Treasury also used the evaluation of 

Policy-Based Lending (PBL) to work with management to improve the use of PBLs to 

leverage reforms in recipient countries. In addition, Treasury has also closely monitored 

the implementation of the recommendations in IED’s evaluation on State-Owned 

Enterprise Engagement and Reform. 

• EBRD – Through U.S. membership on the EBRD Audit Committee in 2018, Treasury 

participated in guiding the work for the external assessment of the EvD and engaged on 

in-depth project 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 advocated for the 

IDB Group to adopt 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 AfDB, AsDB, and IDB recently completed external assessments of their 

evaluation departments, while the EBRD’s is ongoing. 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 IDB, which will be a top priority for Treasury in FY 19. Treasury will 

also work to maintain the independence of IDEV at the AfDB as the new Evaluator General 

takes the helm.