Writing For Nonprofit Reports

We recently did "lookbacks" to see how well 2 recent GiveWell grants met our initial expectations. 1 went better than expected, 1 went worse. More on what we learned ⤵️ 1️⃣ Since 2020, we've given ~$120m to New Incentives for cash incentives to get kids vaccinated in Nigeria. These grants are *more* cost-effective than we initially thought. We estimated they’d save ~17k lives. Looking back, we think they saved ~27k. Why? Costs dropped from ~$40 per child to ~$20 as the program grew from ~70k to ~1.5m kids - likely due to economies of scale, naira devaluation, and other cost savings. 2️⃣ In 2021, we made a $7.5m grant to Helen Keller International for vitamin A supplements in Nigeria. This grant looks *less* cost-effective than we expected. We thought it would save ~2k lives. Now we think it saved ~450. Why? We now think vitamin A deficiency in Nigeria is lower than we previously thought - and that a lot more kids receive VAS outside of campaigns than we realized. ➡️ Some other lessons: - Initial estimates can be way off - we need more humility about cost-effectiveness numbers - We should talk to local stakeholders more - we've probably missed useful info by not talking enough to govt officials and local experts - Location-specific data (like state-level burden estimates) can be really noisy - we need to triangulate with multiple sources - Quick program exits can strain relationships - saw this with VAS expansions in Nigeria ➡️ We picked these 2 grants for initial lookbacks because: - enough time had passed to see real outcomes - the findings could inform upcoming grant decisions - the grants were large/important to our portfolio Going forward, we plan to conduct lookbacks more regularly across our grant portfolio and publish what we find. 📄 More here: https://lnkd.in/gGhF3y6v

Your evaluation was rigorous. Your report killed it. You designed the methodology carefully. You interrogated the findings until you were confident they were right. Then you wrote a 80-page document. It buried the most important finding on page 34, and.. submitted it to a stakeholder who read the executive summary on a flight and never opened it again. The evaluation was good. The report undid it. And this isn't a personal failing. It's a sector-wide one. The development sector produces thousands of evaluation reports every year. Most of them change nothing. The writing is why. Not the data. Not the methodology. Not the sampling strategy or the theory of change. The writing. 𝗖𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗣𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝘁𝘄𝗼, 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼. They're dense where they should be direct. Cautious where they should be bold. Written to demonstrate expertise rather than to communicate it. And the people who needed to act on the findings... the minister skimming between meetings, the programme manager already stretched thin, the donor trying to decide whether to renew, they encountered a wall of jargon, a forest of tables, and a recommendation section so hedged and generalised it could apply to any programme anywhere. So they didn't act. Or they acted on instinct instead of evidence. Because the report didn't give them a choice. Here's how to do better... 1. Write for a real audience, not an abstract one ↳ Not “stakeholders” ↳ The specific person who will use this ↳ The minister with 5 minutes ↳ The programme manager under pressure ↳ The donor deciding on funding If you don’t know who you’re writing for, you’ll default to writing for yourself. 2. Start with the decision, not the methodology ↳ What needs to change because of this report? Write to that. 3. Lead with the answer ↳ Don’t make people work for the insight Page 1 should tell them what matters 4. Design for use, not submission ↳ A report is not the final product A decision is ---- Want insights like this directly in your inbox? Sign up for my mailing list. It's FREE! 👉 https://lnkd.in/ec8mqV2M

Are your programs making the impact you envision or are they costing more than they give back? A few years ago, I worked with an organization grappling with a tough question: Which programs should we keep, grow, or let go? They felt stretched thin, with some initiatives thriving and others barely holding on. It was clear they needed a clearer strategy to align their programs with their long-term goals. We introduced a tool that breaks programs into four categories: Heart, Star, Stop Sign, and Money Tree each with its strategic path. -Heart: These programs deliver immense value but come with high costs. The team asked, Can we achieve the same impact with a leaner approach? They restructured staffing and reduced overhead, preserving the program's impact while cutting costs by 15%. -Star: High impact and high revenue programs that beg for investment. The team explored expanding partnerships for a standout program and saw a 30% increase in revenue within two years. -Stop Sign: Programs that drain resources without delivering results. One initiative had consistently low engagement. They gave it a six-month review period but ultimately decided to phase it out, freeing resources for more promising efforts. -Money Tree: The revenue generating champions. Here, the focus was on growth investing in marketing and improving operations to double their margin within a year. This structured approach led to more confident decision-making and, most importantly, brought them closer to their goal of sustainable success. According to a report by Bain & Company, organizations that regularly assess program performance against strategic priorities see a 40% increase in efficiency and long-term viability. Yet, many teams shy away from the hard conversations this requires. The lesson? Every program doesn’t need to stay. Evaluating them through a thoughtful lens of impact and profitability ensures you’re investing where it matters most. What’s a program in your organization that could benefit from this kind of review?

Reports are not just documents — they are tools for learning, accountability, and decision-making. In NGO, development, and professional work, different reports serve different purposes. An activity report shows what was done. A progress report tracks achievements over time. A monitoring report helps identify gaps and follow-up actions. An evaluation report assesses effectiveness and impact. A donor report communicates results, challenges, learning, finance, and accountability. Good report writing is not only about listing activities. It should clearly answer: 1. What did we do? 2. What did we achieve? 3. What changed? 4. What did we learn? 5. What should happen next? When reports are clear, evidence-based, and well-structured, they help organizations improve programs, make better decisions, strengthen transparency, and communicate impact more professionally. A good report records the work. A great report shows the value of the work. #ReportWriting #NGO #DevelopmentWork #ProjectManagement #MonitoringAndEvaluation #MEAL #DonorReporting #Accountability #Documentation #LearningAndImpact #ProgramManagement #NonprofitLeadership #ProfessionalWriting #SocialImpact

Strong evaluation reports are essential for learning, accountability, and better development outcomes. According to guidance from the (former) United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an effective evaluation report should be clear, evidence-based, and designed to inform decision-making. A well-prepared report does more than document findings—it helps organizations understand what works, what does not, and why. Key elements of a strong evaluation report include: • A concise executive summary that highlights purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions • Clear evaluation questions linked to program decisions • Transparent methods and acknowledgement of limitations • Evidence-based findings supported by qualitative and quantitative data • Practical, action-oriented recommendations Equally important is ensuring transparency and learning by sharing evaluation findings widely and integrating them into future program design and strategy. In the field of international development and evaluation, the real value of an evaluation lies not only in the analysis, but in how its insights are used to improve programs and policies. What practices have you found most useful when preparing or reviewing evaluation reports? #Evaluation #MonitoringAndEvaluation #InternationalDevelopment #Learning #USAID #EvalCommunity

Evaluation is a powerful tool that transforms data into actionable insights, guiding humanitarian programs to enhance their impact in complex environments. This UNFPA Evaluation Handbook provides a comprehensive, step-by-step guide tailored to country-level operations, specifically for Country Programme Evaluations (CPEs). It aims to strengthen evaluation practices by fostering methodological rigor, stakeholder engagement, and strategic utilization of findings, ensuring that evaluations serve as catalysts for positive change. Humanitarian professionals will find this handbook invaluable for its pragmatic approach, blending theory and practice in evaluation. It navigates through each evaluation phase: preparation, design, fieldwork, reporting, and dissemination, outlining tools, templates, and practical advice to support high-quality evaluations. It emphasizes principles such as accountability, adaptation, and a focus on sustainability, aligning evaluations with the UNFPA strategic priorities and the broader Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For those committed to driving evidence-based actions, this handbook is a resource that bridges evaluation theory with actionable strategies, empowering professionals to conduct meaningful evaluations that foster learning, accountability, and informed decision-making in humanitarian settings.

The "Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health," published by the CDC in 1999, provides structured steps and standards for conducting program evaluations effectively. This Framework, which is widely recognized globally, was shaped in alignment with the Program Evaluation Standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. These standards emphasize that evaluations should be useful, practical, ethical, accurate, transparent, and economically sensible. The Framework is adaptable and not specific about the focus, design, or methods of evaluation, making it compatible with various international approaches, particularly in humanitarian settings. Key aspects of the Framework include: 1-Engaging stakeholders: Involving those affected by the program and those who will use the evaluation results. 2-Describing the program: Detailing the program’s needs, expected effects, activities, resources, development stage, context, and logic model. 3-Focusing the evaluation design: Clarifying the evaluation’s purpose, users, uses, questions, methods, and procedural agreements. 4-Gathering credible evidence: Ensuring data quality and addressing logistical issues related to data collection and handling. 5-Justifying conclusions: Analyzing data, interpreting results, and making recommendations based on established criteria and stakeholder values. 6-Ensuring use and sharing lessons learned: Planning for the use of evaluation results from the start, engaging stakeholders throughout, and effectively communicating findings. This comprehensive approach aids in enhancing program evaluation and accountability across diverse settings worldwide. #PublicHealth #CDC #ProgramEvaluation

𝐌𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐆, 𝐄𝐕𝐀𝐋𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍, 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘, 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐇, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 (𝐌𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐋) 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞: Outcomes Evaluation Toolkit 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰: This report begins with a brief guide to the 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, covering the various purposes that evaluation may serve and the special significance of outcomes evaluation for monitoring program performance. It then walks through the process of identifying outcomes that are aligned with a program’s goals and objectives, defining measurements or indicators to record and track those outcomes, and the steps involved in designing and implementing ongoing outcomes monitoring. The following section of this report contains a set of 𝐭̲𝐨̲𝐨̲𝐥̲𝐬̲ ̲𝐚̲𝐧̲𝐝̲ ̲𝐭̲𝐞̲𝐦̲𝐩̲𝐥̲𝐚̲𝐭̲𝐞̲𝐬̲ that mission-driven organizations may find useful in designing and implementing outcomes monitoring. The tools in this section include a 𝐥̲𝐨̲𝐠̲𝐢̲𝐜̲ ̲𝐦̲𝐨̲𝐝̲𝐞̲𝐥̲ ̲𝐭̲𝐞̲𝐦̲𝐩̲𝐥̲𝐚̲𝐭̲𝐞̲, a checklist to guide organizations through 𝐨̲𝐩̲𝐞̲𝐫̲𝐚̲𝐭̲𝐢̲𝐨̲𝐧̲𝐚̲𝐥̲𝐢̲𝐳̲𝐢̲𝐧̲𝐠̲ ̲𝐨̲𝐮̲𝐭̲𝐜̲𝐨̲𝐦̲𝐞̲𝐬̲, a checklist to assess the quality of evaluation questionnaires, and a simple template that can be used to 𝐭̲𝐫̲𝐚̲𝐜̲𝐤̲ ̲𝐤̲𝐞̲𝐲̲ ̲𝐨̲𝐮̲𝐭̲𝐜̲𝐨̲𝐦̲𝐞̲𝐬̲ ̲𝐚̲𝐜̲𝐫̲𝐨̲𝐬̲𝐬̲ ̲𝐦̲𝐮̲𝐥̲𝐭̲𝐢̲𝐩̲𝐥̲𝐞̲ ̲𝐩̲𝐫̲𝐨̲𝐠̲𝐫̲𝐚̲𝐦̲𝐬̲. Combined with the first section (the brief guide to outcomes evaluation), these tools constitute an Outcomes Evaluation Toolkit. 𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚𝐁𝐲𝐞𝐧𝐤𝐲𝐚 MEARL Consultant Evaluation Partners Ltd 𝖤𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗅: 𝗃𝖻𝗒𝖾𝗇𝗄𝗒𝖺𝟩@𝗀𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗅.𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖳𝖾𝗅: +𝟤𝟧𝟨𝟩𝟢𝟢𝟨𝟤𝟦𝟥𝟥𝟢 (𝖶𝗁𝖺𝗍𝗌𝖠𝗉𝗉)