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, 2017 (P.L. 115-31)

United States Department of the Treasury

October 2017
Report of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Pursuant to Section 7029(a) of the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31)

October 26, 2017

Executive Summary

This report has been prepared pursuant to section 7029(a) of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2017 (the “FY 17 Act”). This section 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 nonlending 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[.]” It also requires that Treasury submit a report to Congress. 

This report details actions consistent with section 7029(a) taken by Treasury, the U.S. Executive 

Directors (USEDs), and 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) – in the past year.

1

 The first section 

of the report provides an overview of Treasury and the USEDs’ (hereafter referred to collectively 

as Treasury) engagement with the MDBs on the issue of evaluation. The second section reviews 

the MDBs’ performance on the four central components of section 7029(a). As set out below, 

Treasury finds that the MDBs have continued to strengthen their performance on section 7029(a) 

over the past year: 

(i) Adoption and implementation of a publicly available evaluation policy. Each MDB 

has an evaluation policy that details the principal responsibilities and governance 

structure of its independent evaluation office. In the past year, with strong Treasury 

support, the World Bank agreed to prepare an evaluation framework for the World 

Bank Group as a whole. Treasury will work closely with World Bank Management 

and other shareholders to finalize this framework this year. All the MDBs also 

developed strategic work programs for their independent evaluation offices to 

maximize the impact of evaluation resources. 

(ii) Strategic use of peer reviews and external experts. Almost all evaluations 

completed by the MDBs’ independent evaluation offices in FY 16 underwent internal 

review, and across the MDBs, an average of 52 percent underwent external review. 

This represents a strong overall level of coverage that is consistent with what the 

MDBs achieved in FY 15. Coverage of external peer reviews was relatively lower at 

 

1

Sections II(ii) and II(iii) are based on data for each MDB’s FY 2016 rather than data from the past 12 months. 
the IDB, and Treasury will press the IDB to increase its external review coverage in 

the coming year. 

(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 16, the average coverage ratio of independent, in-depth evaluations2

across the MDBs was 59 percent. This is a similar coverage ratio as FY 15, and 19

percentage points higher than FY 14. All MDBs exceeded the 25 percent threshold. 

Treasury will urge the MDBs’ independent evaluation offices to continue to conduct a

large number of in-depth evaluations moving forward. 

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

based on accurate data and objective analysis. The MDBs have developed robust 

systems to facilitate the feedback of evaluation results into projects, strategies, and 

policies, and enhanced their systems in the past year. The World Bank undertook a 

number of efforts to better incorporate learning in project design. The AfDB, AsDB, 

EBRD, and IDB deployed or improved tracking systems to hold themselves 

accountable for implementing evaluation recommendations. Additionally, external 

third parties will review the independent evaluation offices and functions at the 

AsDB, IDB, and EBRD in the next two years. Treasury looks forward to using the 

results of these reviews to advocate for further strengthening of the offices. 

I. Overview of Treasury’s Engagement with the MDBs on Evaluation

Evaluation remained a high priority in Treasury’s engagement with the MDBs over the past year.

Treasury’s approach was guided by the four components of section 7029(a). In particular,

consistent with the fourth component and its emphasis on the quality and feedback of evaluation

data, Treasury focused on institutional learning. Treasury used its engagement with the MDBs’

independent evaluation offices, Management, and staff, as well as other relevant stakeholders, to

strengthen the MDBs’ systems for incorporating evaluation evidence and results into projects,

strategies, and policies. Treasury also focused on: using evaluation resources strategically to

maximize their impact; developing and maintaining robust institutional results frameworks; and

maintaining strong and independent evaluation functions. 

Below are key areas of Treasury’s engagement at each MDB: 

 World Bank. Treasury sought to secure outstanding reforms from the external 

assessment of the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), which was 

completed in August 2015. With strong Treasury support, the World Bank decided to 

move forward on our priority reform – development of a World Bank Group-wide 

evaluation framework that sets out evaluation principles, activities, and roles across the 

International Development Association (IDA), the International Bank for Reconstruction 

and Development (IBRD), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the 

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). We are now focused on getting this 

 

2 As explained in section II(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. 
framework finalized in the coming year. Treasury also used the conclusion of the IDA18 replenishment negotiations to secure commitments to strengthen institutional learning 

in IDA operations. 

 AfDB. Treasury worked to address recommendations from the AfDB Independent 

Development Evaluation (IDEV) office’s evaluation of the AfDB’s 2004-2013 

development results, which was completed in 2016. Addressing outstanding 

recommendations from this evaluation is a key Treasury policy priority at the AfDB

moving forward. Treasury helped shape the AfDB’s strong new results management 

framework and added a comparative evaluation of the MDBs’ policies for sanctioning 

companies and individuals that engage in corrupt or fraudulent activity pertaining to 

MDB projects to the IDEV work plan. As with IDA-18, Treasury used the conclusion of 

the African Development Fund (AfDF)-14 replenishment negotiations to strengthen 

learning in AfDF operations. 

 AsDB. Treasury’s engagement at the AsDB centered on improving institutional learning. 

The AsDB Independent Evaluation Division (IED)’s annual report assessed and made 

recommendations to improve how the AsDB incorporates evaluation lessons into

projects, strategies, and policies. We pushed for the development of a concrete and 

comprehensive action plan to address challenges highlighted in the report. Separately, 

Treasury worked with AsDB Management and other shareholders to fine-tune the process 

for the external assessment of IED, which is being conducted in 2017. 

 EBRD. Treasury’s engagement with the EBRD emphasized institutional learning as 

well. EBRD’s independent Evaluation Department (EvD) is enacting a number of 

reforms to enhance learning from evaluation, including improving the design of 

evaluation products and enhancing EvD engagement with project staff. Treasury 

encouraged the EBRD to complement these reforms with stronger staff incentives for 

learning. Treasury also supported EvD’s efforts to deploy its resources more strategically 

and helped fine-tune the process for the two-part assessment of EvD, comprising a selfassessment and an external assessment, which will be completed in 2018. 

 IDB. The term of the Director of the independent Office of Evaluation and Oversight

(OVE) ends in early 2018, and the Board is currently selecting a new Director. Treasury 

has provided significant input into the hiring process and terms of reference for the 

position, so as to ensure selection of a strong individual and provide that individual with 

an appropriate mandate. Treasury is one of five members of the Board selection panel so 

will be heavily involved moving forward. As at AsDB and EBRD, OVE is the subject of 

an independent review this year. Treasury has used this as an opportunity to review the 

adequacy of OVE’s evaluation policy. 

Treasury engagement on MDB evaluation issues went beyond the MDBs themselves. Treasury 

continued to work closely with interagency and external partners – for example, Treasury 

worked with USAID and the State Department to develop U.S. policies towards the Multilateral 

Organization Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN). The State Department sits on the 

Steering Committee of MOPAN, an organization which assesses the effectiveness of various
international organizations, including the MDBs. Treasury also retained its internal emphasis on 

the topic. Treasury staff reviewed the evaluation and results-related policies and strategies that 

were brought before the MDB Boards. Treasury staff also assessed each proposed MDB project 

for likely development impact, risks and proposed mitigants, conformity with U.S. legislative 

provisions, and inclusion of key evaluation components, such as strong results measurement 

frameworks. 

II. Assessment of the MDBs’ Performance on Section 7029(a)

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

Overview. The MDBs’ evaluation policies detail the principal responsibilities and governance 

structures of the independent evaluation offices, including their relations with MDB 

Management and the Boards of Directors.3 The policies vary in the level of detail with which 

they address operational matters, such as specific evaluation practices or how evaluation 

resources are used, and do not address the conduct of “independent, in-depth evaluations” or 

establish a threshold coverage level of at least 25 percent of all MDB projects. At all the MDBs, 

operational matters are addressed in the evaluation offices’ annual work programs, which require 

Board approval. 

Coverage of Evaluation Policies. 

 World Bank. The World Bank has a mandate for the IEG Director General and terms of 

reference for the independent evaluation function that collectively operate as the 

evaluation policy.

4

The World Bank Group is also working on a World Bank-wide 

evaluation framework. 

The Board also approved IEG’s 2018-2020 work program earlier this year. The work 

program takes a highly selective approach, focusing on evaluations that align with the 

World Bank’s twin goals of ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity and

fill key information gaps. The work program also seeks to strengthen institutional 

learning, including by increasing IEG engagement with operational staff. 

 AfDB. The AfDB Board approved IDEV’s latest evaluation policy5in September 2016. 

The Board reviewed IDEV’s 2017 work program earlier this year. The work program 

employs a strategic approach to determine evaluations based on criteria such as 

timeliness, potential impact, stakeholder needs, and risk. 

 

3 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.

4 Available at http://ieg.worldbank.org/Data/dge_mandate_tor.pdf. 

5 Available at http://idev.afdb.org/en/document/revised-independent-evaluation-policy. 
 AsDB. The AsDB Board approved IED’s revised evaluation policy6

in 2008. In 2016, 

the Board approved IED’s 2017-2019 work program. The work program determines 

evaluations based on criteria such as timeliness, relevance, and their ability to strengthen 

country and AsDB evaluation capacity. It also supports implementation of the AsDB’s 

new corporate structure, under which the balance sheets for concessional and nonconcessional lending are merged, and the development of the AsDB’s new corporate 

strategy (Strategy 2030). 

 EBRD. The EBRD Board approved its most recent evaluation policy in 2013.7 

In 2016, the Board approved EvD’s 2017-2019 work program. The work program takes

a more strategic approach than in years past, placing an increased emphasis on the most

useful and impactful evaluations and seeking to improve communication of evaluation

results. 

 IDB. The IDB has terms of reference for the OVE Director and an operational and 

governance framework document, which together function as an evaluation policy8and 

were developed in 2010. In 2016, the Board approved OVE’s 2017-2018 work program. 

The work program determines evaluations and capacity-building support based on criteria 

such as timeliness, relevance, innovation, and stakeholder needs. 

Next Steps. Treasury will continue to encourage all the MDBs’ independent evaluation offices

to develop highly strategic work programs that maximize the impact of their resources. At the

World Bank, Treasury will continue to support the development of a World Bank Group-wide

evaluation framework. At the IDB, Treasury will advocate for the creation and publication of a

standalone evaluation policy. 

(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. 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 almost all evaluations that the MDBs’

independent evaluation offices completed in FY 16 underwent internal review, and across the

MDBs, an average of 52 percent benefitted from external review. As Table 1 indicates, there

was wide variation in external review coverage, with the IDB lagging behind the other MDBs.

Note that the coverage ratios in Table 1 apply to all significant evaluation types (including

project evaluations, sector and thematic reviews, country program evaluations, impact

 

6 Available at https://www.adb.org/site/evaluation/policy. 

7 Available at http://www.ebrd.com/documents/evaluation/evaluation-policy-2013.pdf. 

8 Not available online. Treasury has requested public disclosure of these documents.
evaluations, corporate evaluations, and evaluation annual reports) and exclude the independent

“validations” of self-evaluations of projects by MDB staff, which are typically only reviewed

internally due to their large number.9

Table 1. Evaluations Subject to Peer Review

(FY 16 Coverage Ratio)

MDB Internal Reviews External Reviews

World Bank 100% 84%

AfDB 100% 92%

AsDB 88% 32%

EBRD 100% 38%

IDB 100% 14%

MDB Average 

(non-weighted) 98% 52%

External experts also supported the MDBs’ evaluation work in a number of other ways in FY 16. 

Across the MDBs, external experts provided training to improve the effectiveness of independent

evaluation office staff and substantive input on ongoing evaluation projects. At the World Bank,

external experts helped design how IEG engages with operational staff to improve the feedback

of evaluation lessons into World Bank projects, strategies, and policies. 

Next Steps. Treasury will encourage the IDB OVE to increase its use of external peer reviews. 

While Treasury does not believe that it is necessary or cost-effective to conduct external peer

reviews for all significant evaluations, we find the OVE’s coverage level to be low. Relatedly,

we note that AsDB IED is developing a protocol for conducting peer reviews. Together with

existing IED requirements that set out the number and type of peer reviews for different

evaluation types, this demonstrates IED’s strategic approach to the peer review process. 

Treasury will encourage the other MDBs’ independent evaluation offices to follow IED’s lead in

creating clear processes and criteria for using peer reviews. 

(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 add an additional level of depth to an independent evaluation. 

 

9

For example, the World Bank’s IEG completed 434 validations in FY 16, while it only completed 19 “significant 

evaluations.”
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 

16 by the number of projects completed annually. Treasury finds an average coverage ratio of 

58 percent across the MDBs. 

 

Table 2. Projects Subject to 

Independent, In-Depth Evaluation 

(FY 16 Coverage Ratio)

MDB Coverage Ratio

World Bank10 58%

AfDB 83%

AsDB 87%

EBRD11 35%

IDB12 31%

MDB Average 

(non-weighted) 58%

As reflected in Chart 1, the average coverage ratio across the MDBs for FY 16 is similar to the 

coverage ratio in FY 15, and well above the FY 14 ratio. 

 

10

 The World Bank denominator does not include non-lending activities (e.g., technical assistance) of IDA and 

IBRD, due to both their sheer volume (IDA and IBRD completed 1,859 non-lending activities in FY 16) and 

methodological difficulties in determining what constitutes a “significant” and “analytical” non-lending activity, as 

described in the FY 17 Act. It does, however, include non-lending activities of IFC.

11

 The EBRD denominator is the number of “evaluation-ready” projects (i.e., projects that have been completed for 

at least 18-25 months and are not in corporate recovery) identified annually by EvD. This does not include all

completed projects (while the EBRD completed 267 projects in FY 16, the list included 161), but Treasury believes 

this is the most appropriate denominator. 

12

 The IDB denominator is the “universe” of evaluable projects, which can include a large number of projects 

completed over varying time periods. The entire IDB evaluation universe for FY 16 comprised 1,019 projects, far 

more than were actually completed in FY 16.
Next Steps. Treasury will urge the MDBs’ independent evaluation offices to continue to conduct 

a large number of in-depth evaluations. In order to do so, the independent evaluation offices 

must be adequately resourced, and so Treasury will remain a strong supporter of the offices in

MDB budget discussions. 

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 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. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2014 2015 2016

Chart 1. Coverage of Independent, In-Depth 

Evaluations: FY 14-FY 16

World Bank

AfDB

AsDB

EBRD

IDB

MDB Avg,
(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 various evaluation components are included upfront in project 

proposals. These requirements can include results measurement frameworks, cost-benefit 

analyses, risk assessments, and the identification of evidence from previous evaluations that was 

used to inform the design of the project. For project implementation, the MDBs have an array of 

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

reports. The MDBs also have systems that track the implementation of evaluation 

recommendations, thereby holding themselves accountable for follow through. 

Improvements in the Past Year. The MDBs continued to strengthen their feedback systems in 

the past year. The World Bank undertook a number of efforts to enhance learning in project 

design, including refining how IEG engages with project staff; developing a new system to

automatically provide project designers with custom-tailored “knowledge packages” of 

evaluation lessons; and conducting a stocktaking of impact evaluations, with the ultimate goal of 

creating a searchable impact evaluation database. AfDB IDEV fully deployed two evaluation 

databases: its public database of evaluation results, recommendations, and lessons – which 

currently houses over 4,000 recommendations and 2,000 lessons – and its new recommendation 

tracking system. EBRD EvD also deployed its new recommendation tracking system. AsDB 

IED and Management are working closely to refine the AsDB’s recommendation tracking 

system, and IDB OVE, which introduced its tracking system in 2013, conducted its first 

validation of tracking system results. It is also worth noting that the MDBs do not undertake 

these efforts in isolation – the Evaluation Cooperation Group, a network of MDB and other 

independent evaluation offices, is working on a project to improve accountability and feedback 

systems across its member institutions. 

The MDBs also undertook a number of efforts to strengthen the quality of evaluation data. The 

EBRD is working on projects to refine and standardize evaluation indicators, standardize results 

management frameworks, and strengthen data collection processes. The World Bank revised the 

design of project completion reports to improve how lessons are captured, and World Bank IEG 

launched a new staff skills academy. As previously discussed, AsDB IED, EBRD EvD, and IDB

OVE are subject to external assessments in 2017 and 2018. Treasury strongly supports regular 

external assessments of the MDBs’ independent evaluation offices to maximize their efficiency 

and effectiveness. 

Next Steps. Treasury is pleased by the progress made by the MDBs in the past year, and will 

continue to prioritize this issue moving forward. In particular, Treasury will seek to strengthen 

real-time feedback during project implementation and incentives and requirements to incorporate 

results in project design. Recognizing that the availability and quality of evaluation data varies 

based on the country and implementing partner, and that statistical capacity building has 

significant long-term benefits, we will also work with the MDBs and other stakeholders to

improve data capabilities in developing countries. Finally, we will use the results of the external 
assessments of AsDB IED, EBRD EvD, and IDB OVE to seek further enhancements to the work 

of the independent evaluation offices. 

III. Conclusion

As indicated above, the MDBs continued to strengthen their performance on evaluation over the 

past year. The MDBs developed revised policy guidance, improved how they strategically 

allocate evaluation resources, and enhanced their feedback systems for evaluation lessons. 

Concurrently, they maintained high average coverage levels for independent, in-depth 

evaluations and internal and external reviews. As discussed throughout this report, Treasury will 

seek additional strengthening of the MDBs’ evaluation functions, policies, and performance.

Treasury’s primary avenue for doing so will be the MDB Boards. The Boards will discuss and 

make decisions on a number of relevant items in coming year. This includes annual Board items, 

such as independent evaluation office work programs and institutional budgets, as well as less 

frequent or one-off items, such as the preparation of the World Bank evaluation framework or 

selection of the IDB OVE Director. As it does on other policy issues, Treasury will complement 

its engagement through the formal Board process with meetings with other shareholders and 

MDB Management and staff. This includes high-level meetings with MDB Senior Management 

and independent evaluation office directors at the MDB annual meetings. Finally, Treasury will 

maintain its close collaboration with the interagency and other external partners, such as 

MOPAN and the Evaluation Cooperation Group.