Beyond the final report: What does it take to communicate evaluation well?

Beyond the final report: What does It take to communicate evaluation well?

A very interesting and timely topic. The contributions are very interesting and complementary to each other.
It is widely agreed that communication must be integrated at the beginning and throughout the evaluation process to identify, collect, and leverage all appropriate materials, tools, resources, and channels to effectively reach the end-users of the evaluation results. The ultimate goal is to increase the use of these results to support decision-making and promote or support changes or innovation, whether disruptive or in continuity with the evaluated project.

Diversity of needs among potential users, and dissatisfaction with or difficulties in accessing certain evaluation products

• The primary recipients are very often the funders and project partners, obviously to fulfill the project's accountability and learning obligations. Although well-conducted evaluation reports help to satisfy this category recipients, there is often dissatisfaction related either to the quality of the information shared, the way in which it is shared, or the medium or channels used for sharing. Within this category, there are also subcategories whose needs and constraints differ as already mentionned by previous contributors.
• The other stakeholders in the project (service providers, NGOs, CSOs, beneficiaries and their representatives), although often mentioned as potential users of the evaluation, actually benefit from few evaluation products tailored to their needs. When they are only considered at the end of the process, some results and evidence that could have been shared with them through concise but precise messages may turn out to be incomplete or unvalidated in the previous stages, or lack robustness.

How to better integrate the needs of evaluation users?
It is crucial to integrate the communication objective and plan at the very beginning of the evaluation, particularly in the Terms of Reference (ToRs). This implies, among other things:

• clearly identifying the expected users of the evaluation results while specifying what types of information might interest them and in what formats and through which channels;
• identifying the necessary materials and information early on;
• integrating these concerns and the associated deliverables into the evaluation's Terms of Reference (TORs) with the responsibilities of each party, so that they can be taken into account throughout the evaluation process.

Beyond the detailed information to be provided in the main evaluation report, this will also have the advantage of allowing evaluators to seize every opportunity during interviews with stakeholders to collect key information useful for formulating key messages and communicating concisely, accurately, and effectively on lessons learned, successes, areas for improvement or opportunities for leveraging best practices, and future prospects.

Boosting the use of evaluation products

• In addition to the conventional products (reports, summaries, etc.) and networks often used (professional network, websites, etc.), it is necessary to develop a variety of specific products adapted to the different recipients as specified in the TORs.
• Social media tools and new communication channels should be considered, particularly in the African context where there is a significant impact of emerging influencers, opinion leaders and innovative information-sharing platforms.
• Agencies could build and rely on a database of well-identified and sensitized influencers and opinion leaders capable of sharing short video, photo, and infographic content targeting points of interest.
  These channels can

 Prevent or manage the risks associated to certain evaluation products.
Developing concise products (short videos, policy briefs, etc.) involves certain risks. There is a real challenge in successfully delivering a concise, precise, and balanced message that does not overemphasize positive results, that does not focus too much on criticism, that does not incriminate but informs about successes and clearly points out the lessons learned, the improvements to be made, and the ways to achieve them.

For monitoring & evaluation to carry value beyond the project, it is crucial to engage the stakeholders themselves in the definition of metrics, the selection of indicators, and in ensuring transparency & accountability of results & in reporting, both to the community involved and to the funders. Establishing participative methods from the outset builds a foundation of trust as well as the capacity to sustain and learn from monitoring, measuring and most importantly analysis to inform course corrections and improvement. In my experience the vast majority of M&E fails to close this learning feedback loop. When the process lacks meaning to the intended (so-called) beneficiaries it can only function as a bureaucratic exercise for donors. It is more valuable to collect less data if it is Utilized to inform and sustain beneficial outcomes by and for stakeholders who actually hold a stake in the M&E process, than to conform to external standards of rigor. It can always be expanded upon - as needed. Less is more if it is sustained beyond the project. By the same token the communication of results and learning is most valuable in terms of uptake & impact when delivery is designed using relatable language & creative methods that are recognizable and interesting to the people involved. This means distilling key messages & working with artists and musicians and other creatives, using culturally appropriate media to bring what we are learning to life. My 50 years of experience in M&E has taught me: above all make it « meaningful, memorable and actionable ». Remember even when We are the donors, We do not read our painstakingly written professionally illustrated project reports!

Hello everyone,

I have read the post, which is very interesting. First, I would like to make an important distinction between evaluation and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). In the development of the post, I believe it refers more to M&E — specifically to the communication work assigned to the M&E team — since the evaluation itself is carried out by all categories of project stakeholders and not by a separate team.

From the perspective of performance indicators to be monitored, M&E should distinguish between beneficiaries, partners, and project management stakeholders. To facilitate learning and the capitalization of information, the M&E team should regularly conduct field missions and produce reports that must systematically be communicated to the various project actors, through all available channels: written reports, in-person oral communication, recorded communication, etc.

This ensures that all actors are informed and that lessons can be learned, particularly through discussion and debate. The regularity of the M&E team’s missions is so crucial that monitoring and evaluation are considered a continuous activity. This approach makes it possible to correct deviations early on and progress toward the desired changes.

The number of information products also facilitates the evaluation itself, which should take place at mid-term and at the end of the project.

Thank you

Allow me a few reflections on communicating evaluation results for maximizing a project impact beyond the end of the project. I think most project evaluations are done to review compliance with initial objectives. While this is important it must be recognized that projects have a limited timeframe and will close shortly after the evaluation is completed. This makes the evaluation mostly a historic statement that can be quickly tossed into the dustbin of completed proclaimed successful projects as the development effort correctly moves on to focus on other active projects. Thus, I would contend that critical contribution of evaluations is the guidance they provide to future projects to better serve the intended beneficiaries. Thus, most critical people to communicate evaluation results are those who are funding and designing future projects. However, these individuals are often too busy working with new projects to critically review evaluation reports of closing projects. Also, to be effective the evaluations must be carefully designed, implemented, and analyzed. Here I have some serious reservations that have resulted in evaluations overlooking critical concerns or over relying on innovations the beneficiaries substantially reject. Please allow me to continue as it applies to projects designed to assist smallholder farmers.

Operational Feasibility – Dietary Energy Deficit

My first concern is evaluations are only as good as the criteria included and questions asked. If critical issues are overlooked than regardless of who receives the evaluation report, it will have limited impact on future projects or contribute to enhanced smallholder production, economic well-being or environmental sustainability. More likely it will just more deeply continue the current project designs that could keep smallholders entrenched in poverty. For smallholder development projects my concern is, are the production innovations operationally feasible. Our small plot research/ demonstration programs to a great job of determining what the physical potential of an area is, but do not address this issue of labor requirements or access to contract mechanization needed to extend the small plot results across a community. It is just assumed not to be a problem. Sorry but it is!!!  Who within an agriculture development project is responsible for determining the labor or mechanization requirements to extend small plot results across a community in the timely manner needed to fully take advantage of the innovations? In 50+ years working with smallholder communities I have never seen this fully addressed. I think this issue falls into an administrative void between the agronomists or other bio-scientists who develop innovations and the social scientists who assist smallholders implement them. How easy would it be to include this in an evaluation? Would this explain why there is often very limited acceptance of production innovations, despite extensive effective extension/ education efforts? Don’t we tend to concentrate on informing our less educated colleages than listening to them or carefully observing the field activity, even if adjacent to our demonstration plots. 

A big part of this operational feasibility is the dietary energy deficit horrors. That is for a full day of manual agronomic field work you need a diet of 4000+ kcal/day while most smallholder are lucky to get 2500 kcal/day of which 2000 kcal/day must be allocated to basic metabolism leaving only 500 kcal/day for work energy which is enough for only a couple hours of diligent effort, perhaps paced over a couple more. The result is 8+ weeks for basic crop establishment which quickly voids all mid-season crop husbandry activities. This quickly becomes a very strong recommendation of facilitating access to mechanization if we are ever going to lead smallholders out of poverty. However, we seem determined to emphasis manual labor in our promotions without realizing this is poverty entrapment. A community just cannot manually hoe its way out of poverty!! 

What would it take to get this concern incorporated into project evaluations? I would think an 8-week spread in crop establishment would be easily visible and should not be dismissed as an educational problem particularly as most smallholder farmers are aware their food security is at stake. While we have recognized smallholder farmers are poor and hungry for decades, why has this not been looked at as a major hinderance to crop husbandry? What questions would get to the crux of the problem? How easy would it be to evaluate the dietary energy available? What is the probability most of our crop management innovations compel smallholder farmers to exert more caloric energy than they have access to? Please note that compelling farmers to exert more caloric energy than they have access to could be referred to the International Criminal Court is The Hague as a “crime against humanity”. Is it possible to obtain widespread community wide acceptance of production innovations without addressing this issue in future projects? Isn’t facilitating access to mechanization the key to improving smallholder agriculture? Who should receive evaluation reports that include this issue so it can be addressed in future projects?  

Compliance Evaluations – Cooperative Scandal

Evaluations to document compliance with project objectives are usually internal evaluations rather than independently contracted evaluations. This is basically due to the cost of hiring external evaluators. Thus, the desire for project extensions and future projects makes it almost imperative to skew the evaluations toward a most favorable position rendering them propaganda document from contractor to donor. My best example of this is a coffee cooperative representing some 21,800 growers proudly marketed some 181 metric tons of presumed green bean coffee. This sounds impressive but divide it out and you have 8.3 kg/grower. If a coffee plant typically produces 2 kg of marketable green-bean, the cooperative’s market share is only 8 plants/grower? How many growers are living off only 8 coffee plants? If your average coffee farmer produces I ha of coffee yielding 225 kg of green bean the 8.3 kg would represent only 7% of the production. What happened to the other 93% of the production. Was it marketed through those usually vilified private traders?  I would claim the cooperative impact on its members was trivial!! Yet this was promoted and published as a great successful project. Such skewed reporting may help the project contractor with project extensions and future projects, but it is a disservice to the intended beneficiaries and to the extent in encourages future projects to rely on the cooperative business modal a major disservice to the overall agriculture development process allowing billions of US Dollars or Euros to be squandered on programs the beneficiaries are wisely avoiding, as has been the case for nearly 40 years.

While I would like to view this as an exception, in my decade long quiet review publications promoting the cooperative business model imposed by development projects on smallholder communities, I regrettably find it more normal. Here I think the evaluation process has collected good reasonable data, but the analysis emphasizing aggregate analysis is misleading. Aggregate analysis can often provide some impressive data as noted above, good for propaganda promotions, but as shown above, can quickly be reduced to trivia with some simple conversion to percentage. Not good for guiding future projects to better serve the smallholder communities. The need here is for donors to demand more critical evaluation that emphasis targets, preferable percentage targets, that will separate success from failure for such parameters as percentage of eligible farmers actively participating, percent market share within members and community, percent financial benefit for participating, etc. In essence the basic business parameters that determine the success of failure of any business enterprise. Has anyone ever seen these parameters express in project evaluations of imposed producer organizations? Please check the reference below for list of parameters I would like included in evaluation of producer organizations as well as what would be accepted by underwriting donor taxpayers as target compliance. The results I have noted are not even close!! Given how producer organizations – cooperatives are promoted as the most ideal business model available but fail to attract a sizeable participation and trivial market share for the community they serve, one must wonder how much the project is committed to serving the smallholder beneficiaries vs. imposing a socially desirable but non-competitive business model. 

Again, if the evaluations are more a propaganda tool to cover up what by normal standards are total failure it really doesn’t manner who receives them. They will do more harm than good.

Summary

As I mentioned at the beginning the real benefit of any evaluation is how well it guides future projects to better serve the intended beneficiaries. The ability to provide such guidance is highly dependent on not overlooking critical issues such as the operational feasibility of innovations and related concern for dietary energy deficit or using evaluations to propagandize innovations such as producer organizations that are wisely rejected by beneficiaries. If we are sincerely interested in assisting smallholder producers out of poverty these issues must be noted in evaluations and address. If not, I am left wondering if there is something more sinister taking place. That is while I accept the implementing personal are devoted, the donor might have a larger more political agenda of subverting host governments for political purposes resulting in going through the motions of assisting people without accomplishing much, as excellently described by John Perkins in his text “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”. A text I would rate at about 80% accurate.

For more details I refer to you an article I prepared for a symposium at Colorado State University reflecting on my 50+ years assisting smallholder communities. The website link is: https://agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2023/03/Reflections.pdf . It carefully reviews the issues I have mentioned with links to additional webpages. I hope you can take some time to review the article and it will provide guidance on how to improve evaluations so they better guide future development projects that will truly benefit smallholder communities. 

Thank you

Dick Tinsley

Prof. Emeritus

Soil & Crop Sciences

Colorado State University

Beyond the Final Report: A Visual Communication Specialist’s Take

In my role as a communications specialist and graphic designer focusing on data visualization and participatory approaches, I believe that effective evaluation communication is not only about delivering a final product. It is about embedding visual thinking, stakeholder dialogue, and co-creation throughout the evaluation process.

On collaboration with local staff or external partners

Early involvement of local communication staff, field teams, or partners ensures that the visuals we produce (such as evaluation briefs, infographics, or videos) are truly adapted to the context and audience. In one project, we worked with local staff to design and translate two briefs and a video into the local language. The result was stronger ownership and greater willingness to use the findings later. Planning visuals together also helps identify preferences (digital or print, language, icons, colours) and prevents the usual last-minute “make it look nice” rush.

On low-cost or no-cost strategies for accessible and engaging sharing

• Live illustration during workshops: a digital or print visual “harvest” of stakeholders’ voices, captured on the spot and shared immediately.
• Modular templates: design icons, layouts, and colour systems once, then reuse them across different outputs (posters, slides, summary infographics) to save time and resources.
• Micro-content versions: short animations, social media posts, or one-page visuals that serve as entry points to longer reports, making findings more visible and shareable without requiring extensive production.

Why this matters

When communication is integrated from the beginning rather than added at the end, it shifts evaluation away from a compliance exercise and towards learning and action. As Silvio noted, “communication is the bridge between evidence and action.” Early visual facilitation and collaboration help evaluations become tools for adaptive management, rather than documents that remain unused on websites.

What I have found challenging

Time and budget constraints often relegate visuals to a “nice to have” category at the end of an evaluation. Without early planning, visual design becomes rushed and less effective. Measuring whether a visual output actually supports decision-making also remains challenging. Metrics such as clicks or downloads are easy to track, but it is more difficult to assess whether staff are referencing or reusing visuals in their work.

In sum

Designing for understanding, participation, and reuse requires thinking visually, early, and collaboratively. As graphic designers working within the evaluation field, we have the opportunity to make findings not only visible, but also meaningful and actionable.

• Start communication at the preparatory stage
  • Hold an early alignment discussion with the evaluand and commissioning organization to identify learning priorities, sensitivities, and areas where clarification may be needed.
  • Ask project teams to share what they hope to learn from the evaluation. This respects their experience and allows the evaluator to understand what findings could be most useful to them.
  • Example: Circulate a simple pre-inception survey asking, “What are three lessons you believe would be most valuable from this evaluation?” and use these inputs to refine evaluation questions.
• Clearly define roles and expectations of all stakeholders
  • Even though the evaluation remains independent, all parties must understand their roles. The evaluand’s responsibility may include coordinating access to project data, arranging interviews, and supporting field visit logistics.
  • Example (evaluand): The Ministry focal person supports scheduling interviews with district officials and ensures necessary approval letters are issued.
  • Example (other actors): Local partner NGOs prepare community entry protocols, informing chiefs or community leaders so that visits are welcomed rather than abrupt.
  • Beneficiaries should also be informed in clear, non-technical language about the evaluation’s purpose and how they will participate.
  • Example (beneficiaries): Before interviews, data collectors read a short script explaining confidentiality and that their responses will not affect their eligibility for future support.
• Ensure communication is ongoing and two-directional
  • Communication should not be limited to inception and final dissemination. Instead, set up regular structured touchpoints to review progress, clarify emerging issues, and resolve challenges.
  • Example: Agree to a 30-minute weekly check-in call with the evaluand to confirm upcoming interviews, check document access status, and surface any concerns early.
• Strengthen internal communication within the evaluation team
  • The commissioning organization should clearly assign roles such as team leader, qualitative lead, quantitative analyst, report writer, field coordinator, and liaison officer.
  • Do this explicitly in both contracts and kickoff meetings, not informally.
  • Example: To avoid duplication, designate one person to contact implementing partners. If two team members contact the same partner separately, it may appear disorganized or raise confusion.
• Provide training and familiarization with communication platforms before the evaluation begins
  • Do not assume all team members are familiar with the chosen platforms (e.g., Slack, MS Teams, Dropbox, Trello).
  • Allocate a dedicated learning period before the inception phase to ensure everyone understands how to use the tools effectively.
  • Example: If Teams will be used, conduct a live session demonstrating how to:
    • Upload and version-control documents
    • Share screens during interviews
    • Use channels to separate field logistics from analysis discussions
• Designate one central point of contact throughout the evaluation
  • To avoid mixed messages, identify a single individual responsible for all communication to and from the evaluation team.
  • Example: The Evaluation Team Leader serves as the only authorized point of communication with the donor. Other team members route queries internally first to avoid inconsistent messaging.
• Conduct a preliminary findings sharing session immediately after data collection
  • Present emerging themes, not final conclusions. This invites clarification and ensures interpretations reflect realities.
  • Example: If data suggests a drop in project attendance, stakeholders may clarify that school calendars shifted due to strikes or weather events. This prevents incorrect assumptions in the final report.
  • This step helps refine analysis, validate insights, and improve the relevance of recommendations.

Use multiple communication formats to share evaluation findings

• Evaluation reports should not be one-format-fits-all. Different audiences require different levels of detail and styles of presentation.
• Text-heavy reports often discourage use and learning, especially among stakeholders who prefer visual information.
• Practical examples:
  • Full Technical Report: For donors, policy analysts, and researchers who need detail.
  • Easy-to-Read Summary (5–10 pages): For program managers and partners.
  • Infographic-Only Version: For community members, advocacy groups, and general audiences. This can show key results using visuals such as charts, icons, timelines, and outcome pathways.
  • Thematic Digests: Short 2–3 page briefs on individual themes (e.g., gender, youth employment, capacity building), derived from the full report.

This approach improves accessibility, strengthens knowledge uptake, and increases the likelihood that the evaluation will inform decision-making.

BEYOND THE FINAL REPORT: WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO COMMUNICATE EVALUATION WELL?

• by Dr. Uzodinma Adirieje

  former National President, Nigerian Association of Evaluators (NAE)

Effective communication of evaluation goes far beyond producing a final report. It requires strategic, inclusive, and continuous engagement with diverse stakeholders before, during, and after the evaluation process. Communicating evaluation well means ensuring that evidence is not only generated but also understood, trusted, and used to inform decisions, improve performance, and drive change.

1. Clarity of purpose and audience: Evaluators must identify who needs the information—policy makers, implementers, funders, or communities—and tailor communication to their needs, literacy levels, and contexts. A technical report alone rarely moves decision-makers; instead, a blend of policy briefs, infographics, dashboards, community dialogues, and social media summaries ensures accessibility and resonance.

2. Timeliness and relevance: Waiting until the end of an evaluation to share findings limits influence. Continuous feedback loops, participatory sense-making sessions, and interim briefs help keep stakeholders engaged and build ownership of results. Communication should be iterative—helping users interpret data, understand implications, and act on insights as they emerge.

3. Storytelling and visualization: These transform data into compelling narratives that connect with human experiences. Visual tools such as graphs, maps, and success stories breathe life into statistics and demonstrate real-world impacts. Evaluators must also be culturally sensitive communicators, respecting local languages, norms, and values to ensure messages are accepted and understood.

4. Building relationships and trust: Communicating Evaluation involves transparency, integrity, and responsiveness—turning evaluation from a bureaucratic exercise into a learning journey. When communication bridges evidence and action, evaluation becomes a catalyst for accountability, transformation, and sustainable development.

Beyond the final report therefore, effective evaluation communication demands empathy, creativity, and collaboration—anchored in the purpose of learning and improving lives.

Communication should be carried out regularly through monitoring panels available to stakeholders and project/programme beneficiaries, in addition to meetings and seminars. Cards and newsletters with infographics also seem to me excellent strategies

Thank you to everyone who shared their experiences and insights over the last week. This has been an inspiring exchange with contributions from Eval4Earth members across Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Europe.

As we move into our final week, we invite you to reflect on two new questions:

• How can communication be integrated throughout the evaluation process?
• How can we better measure whether communication efforts lead to actual use of evaluation findings?

Please continue sharing your experiences and examples in English, French, or Spanish.

Here are some takeaways from last week’s discussion

Collaboration with local partners strengthens relevance and reach

Contributors agreed that collaboration with local staff and partners is essential for communication that is both relevant and effective. Local partners bring knowledge of socio-cultural dynamics, language nuances, and political contexts, improving accuracy, credibility, and inclusiveness. Collaboration also builds capacity, ownership, and promotes two-way learning.

• Obul Ronald noted that local partners can help reach stakeholders with limited literacy or digital access.
• Said Hannan highlighted their role in developing context-specific, real-life examples and using local languages.
• Abramane Kone shared success with appointing community focal points to maintain continuous dialogue between evaluators and communities.
• Everline Frances observed that involving local partners transforms communication from one-way result sharing into an ongoing learning process and helps gather honest feedback.
• Julian Nyamupachitu described how involving young people infused creativity, energy, and innovation into her evalaution - making the findings more relatable and widely shared.

Several contributors suggested working with local partners to identify trusted community platforms - such as church gatherings, sports events, and youth groups - where people naturally engage, discuss, and reflect. These spaces foster inclusion and help translate evidence into collective action.

Emmanuel Abatta cautioned that external evaluators who do not collaborate with local experts risk overlooking stakeholder diversity. Its critical that we involve local partners from the planning stage.

Diagne Bassirou went further, emphasizing that communication with partners should be integral to the project itself.  When such processes are in place, evaluation teams should build on them.

Low- or No-Cost Communication Strategies

Participants also shared practical ideas for low-cost ways to share findings:

• Use email and social media to share messages in diverse formats—short videos, voice notes, or infographics—and even run quick polls to gather feedback.
• Leverage existing community events, platforms, and networks to stimulate dialogue without added costs.
  • Obul Ronald gave an example of a youth-led radio discussion that successfully promoted evaluation dialogue.
• Uzodinma Adirieje recommended virtual platforms as an affordable way to disseminate findings widely.

In the first instance, the evaluation must be right - Thus, the evaluation being reported on must speak about the right activity or project. Again, the data collected must be wholly about the activity or project as commissioned.

Further, communication must not be one-channelled - It has to use different platforms: Physical print, electronic media, including social media. this underscores the need to pass the message through different avenues in order to make it effective.

It is important to note that if the capacity of the personnel used in the evaluation exercise is weak, then the report would be as weak, so the communication would likely go wrong. Further, it would be wrong to also use the wrong person during communication. The communicator of the evaluation report must be well informed about the project and its outcome as reported. Thus, there may be need to co-opt experts in the project to carry out specific assignments.

As much as possible, co-opting the locals through CSOs/CBOs may hasten the communication effect as the various local information and communication channels would facilitate communication. this may also be a cost-effective way of communication to explore.

In addition, the use of local and simple languages may facilitate impact on the project beneficiary communities as comprehension would not be an issue.

Every project evaluation communication should be made with best practices, and must have local relevance.

Simplifying evaluation report key findings to stakeholders is the best way. The summary of key findings and recommendations could be done through a communication publication to reach all relevant stakeholders. Where feasible, a physical or online workshop with stakeholders should be held to discuss key findings and develop an action plan to implement evaluation recommendations. Ensure that the action plan has roles and responsibilities and timeline

Dear Silvio,

Thank you for addressing this important topic, communication in the evaluation process has become more a challenge for the success of this exercise. However, as you can tell, the expected deliverable goes beyond disseminating the final document to stakeholders.

In our experience, communication is transversal throughout the evaluation process of an intervention and when I talk about processes, I consider evaluation as a set from the definition of the problem, the baseline and/or baseline studies, to the intermediate stage of evaluation at the halfway point and the final stage of evaluation. The evaluation should not be seen as a singular step at the end of the project but earlier as a chain with links throughout the life cycle of the project and at each stage, we have tailor-made communication with the different stakeholders, which would facilitate the ownership of the results of the final evaluation and a shared accountability of all parties because it is a participatory exercise of implementation. points in relation to expected results at the beginning of the project based on baseline data and the contribution of the intervention to the problem.

The big challenge lies in this conception of progressive communication at each stage focused on the expected results from the problem to the final evaluation involving all stakeholders, in other words:

Step 1: problem and baseline study: communication with the parties that addresses the problem, the current situation and the prospects in terms of resolution while specifying the expected contribution to the implementation of the intervention in a target area and/or population.

Step 2: Project implementation/mid-term evaluation: access communication on progress in terms of achievement of the targets by Expected Key Results, difficulties encountered, lessons learned, etc.

Step 3: Project closure/final evaluation: communication focused on the achievement of targets, limitations, successes and determining factors, actual and expected results of the project, contribution of the project to the problems, prospects, scaling, capitalization, etc.

Effective Communication begin should well before the final report is prepared. Embedding communication throughout the evaluation process help in fostering learning, ownership, and action among stakeholders.

Effective and low-cost approaches should encourage two-way engagement with program stakeholders to interpret results in their own languages and propose feasible solutions and this include the Use of local radios Stations and community dialogue. In my recent program, for example, a youth-led radio discussion on education outcomes inspired families to support the reintegration of school dropouts into both formal and vocational training in Northern Uganda. 

Collaboration with community development officers, faith leaders, and VSLA facilitators has been instrumental in reaching audiences with limited literacy or access to digital platforms. The main challenge remains balancing communication needs with limited budgets and time constraints, yet participatory methods continue to yield strong results.

combining feedback tools such as suggestion boxes, focus group discussion to help with reflections, and home  visits for follow-ups. Most importantly Observable behavioral changes such as caregivers starting small enterprises or improved school attendance serve as indicators that communication has translated into practical use. 

Inclusion, effective evaluation communication should go beyond sharing information and connect evidence and action. When evaluators prioritize participation, use context-sensitive and multilingual approaches, and  employ local platforms, they transform findings into community-driven solutions. Visuals, storytelling, and ongoing feedback ensure that learning does not end with a report but continues to influence behavioral changes , strengthen accountability, and inspire lasting change within communities..

This is a great discussion.

We have found that an important moment in our evaluation process is in the development of recommendations and the exchange with users (e.g. management who will be tasked with implementing recommendations). In that exchange, there are several potential outcomes, which are useful in different ways:

1. Appreciation of new perspectives: Users valuing independent insights offered by an evaluation's recommendations
2. Validation of existing intentions: Users noting that the recommendations formalize a direction that they have wanted to take but they have not had the evidence to back it
3. Recognition of constraints: Users noting that the recommendation is pointing in the right direction, but that given resources, institutional arrangements, or external forces, the recommendation is not implementable

#3, while not the easy, full endorsement one often hopes for, it has a strategic value in catalyzing dialogue with institutional structures, funders, and other stakeholders about what is needed to enable change.

Communicating evaluation well requires tailoring messages to the audience, using clear language, and presenting findings through multiple formats such as visuals, briefs, or workshops. It’s about engaging stakeholders, telling the story behind the data, and providing actionable recommendations beyond the final report

Thanks, colleagues, for sharing your experiences and ideas. I’ve found this a really interesting and thought-provoking discussion.

Reading your contributions has reinforced my belief in the importance of early planning and in tailoring communications to different evaluation users.

Beyond that, you’ve broadened my thinking on communications even further. I’ve been inspired by those who highlight the need to focus more on dialogue, collective learning, and co-generation of findings in the evaluation process.

The invitation to pay greater attention to participation, inclusion, and the value of identifying and leveraging existing (trusted) spaces and opportunities for dialogue also responds to Silvio’s question about low-cost strategies. Adramane’s experience of identifying community focal points to work with on communication is an idea I’d like to try - perhaps something evaluation teams could do during the inception phase.

I was also inspired by Marilyn’s suggestion to make communication products more interactive - not only because it makes them more engaging and fun, but also because it can provide valuable feedback on communication outcomes.

I would love to continue this useful exchange. Is there a way for us to keep the conversation going on EvalForward once this discussion closes?

Communication is key to everday life but most time it is under estimated or neglected. This negligence eventually ruin the objective of the purpose. One of the best strategies to effective communicate of evaluation findings is to identify different stakeholders and suitable mean of reaching them at the planning phase of the evaluation. This is followed by  allocating funds for the various various communication platforms. There is need to share information with various stakeholders on the purpose and benefits of the evaluation. This makes it easier for stakeholders to anticipate the results. Disseminating report is not adequate. There is need to prepare advocacy briefs for policy makers, use infographics to summarize the findings. In the recent time, the power of the social media cannot be ignored. Townhall meetings is also becoming very useful in sharing the evaluation imformation. Influencers and opinion leaders can also be engaged to discuss the ouput of the evaluation. 

Major challenges involved in embedding communication in the planning phase is that most organisation are yet to embrace the dynamics of information and communication. They still believe that the traditional dissemniation of report is the best way. Secondly, communication is not cheap and in the situation where there is not adequate funding, the organisation may not want to factor communication at the planning stage. Thirdly, some people see evaluation as ticking of the boxes and as a result may deprioritize the communication. There are cases where external evaluators are brought for evaluation without collaboration with local experts. They may not be aware of the diversity of the stakeholders. This has been the major problem in the low income countries. 

The engagement and collaboration with local staff will help to understand the cultural diversity of the stakeholders. This guide the design and communication strategies of the evaluation report and dissemination. Like in Nigeria, you will need to factor the cultural and ethnic diversity in order to effectively communicate the report of the evaluation. This means that from the planning stage, you need to engage locals who undertstand the diversity contexts.

Some of the low cost strategies to share results is the engagement of social media, newspapers and use of influencers or community leaders.

To better measure the effectiveness of our efforts, we can easily use online surveys to measure behavioural changes. Depending on the sector, routine data could demonstrate changes. We can also use social media to conduct opinion polls. 

A useful evaluation is not only measured by the quality of its final report, but by the extent to which its findings are understood, shared, and used.

In the Sahelian context particularly in Mali where linguistic diversity and limited digital access complicate dissemination, communicating evaluation results becomes an act of collective learning and social accountability. My reflection here explores concrete, inclusive, and low-cost strategies to integrate communication throughout the entire evaluation cycle.

1. Integrating Communication from the design stage

When communication is planned from the outset, it strengthens participation and ownership. According to UNFPA (2022–2025), integrating a communication and knowledge management strategy into the evaluation plan significantly improves the dissemination and use of results. Similarly, BetterEvaluation (O’Neil, 2022) recommends involving stakeholders “before, during, and after” the evaluation, rather than communicating only at the end.

In several of my missions in Mali and Niger, the appointment of community focal points (local enumerators and supervisors) during data collection helped maintain continuous dialogue between my evaluation team and local communities — a key factor in ownership and trust.

2. Adapting formats and Channels to target audiences

Effective evaluation communication must “speak the language of its audiences.” The National Academies of Sciences (2014) note that using diverse formats such as summaries, visuals, and videos enhances understanding and use.

In the Sahelian context:

• Community radio, discussion forums, and public gatherings reach non-literate populations;
• Simplified infographics and two-page summaries suit decision-makers;
• Audio and video capsules shared via WhatsApp are ideal for youth and field partners (as documented by USAID and CRS, 2020).

Audio-visual tools thus become levers of inclusion, translating evaluation findings into accessible formats that transcend language barriers.

3. Strengthening Local and Regional Collaboration

Communication in evaluation is more effective when it builds on local actors: community radios, opinion leaders, local authorities, and grassroots NGOs. These partners understand the context, languages, and cultural codes. MEASURE Evaluation (2019) found that stakeholder involvement in dissemination enhances ownership and reduces the “knowledge–action gap.”

African initiatives should promote this approach linking researchers, public institutions, and communities to foster the production and circulation of evaluative knowledge.

In Mali, several of my peace and social cohesion evaluation missions used local radio for interactive broadcasts where results were publicly discussed, fostering collective learning.

4. Measuring the effectiveness of communication

To communicate also means to evaluate communication itself. The Government of Canada (2023) emphasizes that dissemination alone is not enough — one must know whether the messages were understood and used. Simple questions can guide this assessment:

• Did the target audiences understand the key messages?
• Did they take decisions or adapt practices as a result?
• Are the findings still being referenced or used months later?

Low-cost methods such as post-evaluation surveys, focus groups, or WhatsApp voice feedback can help assess communication outcomes.

5. Doing more with less: Low-cost strategies

Effective communication does not require high budgets. Several “low-cost, high-impact” approaches have proven successful:

• Summary sheets on “Five key messages from the evaluation”;
• Public presentations in municipalities or study regions;
• 30-second WhatsApp or SMS voice messages;
• Visual cards illustrating key findings, inspired by American Red Cross (2020) practices.

Such simple tools improve understanding, overcome language barriers, and promote broader ownership.

A key finding from UNEG (2021) shows that fewer than 40% of evaluation reports are actually used underscoring that communication is not optional but essential for real impact.

Practical Recommendations

• Include a “communication” budget line in all evaluation Terms of Reference;
• Develop an integrated communication plan from the start;
• Tailor formats and messages to each audience;
• Partner with local actors and community media;
• Measure the effects of communication on the use of results;
• Share successful practices to strengthen sector-wide capacities.

Conclusion and call for discussion

In the Sahelian context, as in Mali, good communication extends the life of an evaluation. It transforms a technical exercise into a participatory process of social transformation and collective learning. The evaluator becomes a facilitator of meaning — and communication, a bridge between knowledge and action.

What about you? How do your evaluation teams integrate communication from the design stage to strengthen learning and use of results?

I fully agree on the need to move from one-way dissemination to more participatory, learning-centered communication.

From experience, several elements are key:

• Audience analysis: Understanding who the communication is for and tracking how different audiences engage with evaluation products provides the foundation for learning by doing.
• Knowledge packaging: At the CGIAR IAES Evaluation Function, we focus on organizing outputs through resource hubs that cluster reports and related materials for easier access and use.
• Interactivity: Integrating simple tools such as feedback forms or ranking scales can help assess how useful audiences find these resources and generate measurable indicators of uptake.
• Digital storytelling: Formats like reels, carousel posts, data visualizations, and dynamic summaries can translate evidence into more digestible and actionable insights.

Thank you for this stimulating discussion, I have really appreciated the reflections shared so far, especially on how communication can transform evaluation from a compliance exercise into a process that fosters learning, ownership, and accountability.

From my experience working on multi-country health programmes, communication becomes most effective when local partners, youth, community leaders, and community health workers are actively involved in shaping and sharing the evidence. Youth, in particular, play a vital role in extending the reach and resonance of evaluation messages. As a youth mentor and champion in the public health space, I have witnessed first-hand the creativity, energy, and innovation that young people bring; qualities that can be powerfully leveraged to make findings more relatable and widely shared.

They bring context, authenticity, that make evaluation messages more inclusive and meaningful. For instance, involving youth advocates in co-developing briefs or facilitating dissemination events often changes how findings are interpreted and acted upon, therefore transforming evidence into dialogue that truly represents those most affected. Depending on the topic, engaging community and religious leaders alongside youth can further enhance reach, credibility, and ownership, helping turn evaluation into a collective process of reflection and action.

Since communities already gather for church services, sports events, school events and other social or cultural activities, these existing platforms offer a powerful and cost-effective way to share evaluation findings and stimulate dialogue. Leveraging such familiar spaces not only reduces the costs of organising separate dissemination events but also ensures that messages reach people in settings where they naturally engage, discuss, and reflect. Embedding communication within these community structures enhances trust, fosters inclusion, and helps translate evidence into collective action.

What low- or no-cost strategies have you used to share findings effectively? 

Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA), under the leadership of Dr. Uzodinma Adirieje, has consistently employed innovative, low- and no-cost strategies to ensure that evaluation and research findings are effectively communicated, widely disseminated, and practically utilized. Recognizing the financial constraints often faced by civil society organizations, AHOA emphasizes approaches that rely on local partnerships, digital tools, and participatory communication channels to maximize impact at minimal cost.

One key strategy is leveraging existing community structures and networks, such as traditional leaders, community-based organizations, faith groups, and youth associations, to disseminate findings during meetings, advocacy visits, and social gatherings. These trusted community platforms facilitate dialogue and ownership without requiring large budgets. AHOA also utilizes social media and digital communication tools—including WhatsApp, Facebook, X (Twitter), and email—to share evaluation results, infographics, and success stories with stakeholders across Nigeria and beyond. This approach ensures real-time, wide-reaching engagement at virtually no cost.

In addition, AHOA organizes virtual dissemination events, webinars, and online workshops with local and international partners to discuss findings, lessons learned, and policy implications. This reduces logistical expenses while expanding access and participation. Furthermore, AHOA produces concise policy briefs, fact sheets, and press releases written in clear, non-technical language for policymakers, community members, and media outlets. Through these low-cost strategies, Dr. Adirieje and AHOA effectively bridge the gap between evidence generation and action—promoting transparency, stakeholder engagement, and sustainable community-driven development. 

Dr. Uzodinma Adirieje

CEO and Permanent Representative to the United Nations,

Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) - CSOs Global Network and Think-tank for Health, Climate Actions and Development (Winner of the SDG 3 – Good Health and Wellbeing Champion Award). 

<https://afrihealthcsos.blogspot.com/2024/03/about-afrihealth-optonet-as…;

National Coordinator, 

Civil Society Partnership for Sustainable Development Goals in Nigeria (CSP-SDGs Nigeria) 

Pioneer Fellow and former National President (2019 - 2024), Nigerian Association of Evaluators (NAE)

How can collaboration with local staff or partners improve communication relevance and reach? 

Collaboration with local staff and partners is critical to ensuring that evaluations are contextually relevant, effectively communicated, and have far-reaching impact. Local partners possess invaluable insights into the socio-cultural dynamics, language nuances, and political realities of their communities. Their participation helps evaluators design culturally sensitive tools, select appropriate communication channels, and interpret findings within local contexts—thereby enhancing the accuracy and credibility of the evaluation process.

At Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA), we prioritize engaging community-based organizations, local health workers, women’s groups, and youth networks in every stage of evaluation—from planning and data collection to dissemination and feedback. This participatory approach not only improves trust and data quality but also ensures that evaluation findings resonate with stakeholders at the grassroots level. By leveraging existing local communication platforms such as town hall meetings, faith-based gatherings, radio programs, and social media groups, we can broaden the reach and uptake of evaluation results.

Moreover, collaboration with local actors promotes capacity building, ownership, and sustainability. When local partners co-create evaluation tools and strategies, they are better positioned to use the findings for decision-making and advocacy. This strengthens the link between evidence and policy, ensuring that evaluation results drive meaningful change.

In summary, partnerships with local staff and organizations transform evaluation from a top-down exercise into a participatory, inclusive, and impactful process that communicates effectively, respects local realities, and advances sustainable development outcomes. 

Dr. Uzodinma Adirieje

CEO and Permanent Representative to the United Nations,

Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) - CSOs Global Network and Think-tank for Health, Climate Actions and Development (Winner of the SDG 3 – Good Health and Wellbeing Champion Award). 

<https://afrihealthcsos.blogspot.com/2024/03/about-afrihealth-optonet-as…;

National Coordinator, 

Civil Society Partnership for Sustainable Development Goals in Nigeria (CSP-SDGs Nigeria)

I really agree with these reflections. In my experience, working closely with local staff and partners makes communication not only clearer but also more meaningful. They help shape messages in ways that fit the local context, using language, examples, and channels that people trust and relate to. This kind of collaboration makes findings easier to understand and apply on the ground.

It also keeps the communication two-way.

Local partners help gather honest feedback, share how people are reacting, and show whether messages are leading to real change. This turns communication from just sharing results into an ongoing learning process where everyone has a voice.😊

Thanks for continuing this important discussion.

1. Collaboration with local staff/partners
Involving local teams early helps ensure messages are culturally relevant and shared through channels people actually use. This builds ownership and increases the chance the findings lead to real decisions.

2.  Low- or no-cost communication
I’ve found simple tools work best: short summaries or infographics, WhatsApp updates, quick storytelling videos, and small group discussions to walk through results. These methods make findings clear and actionable without needing big budgets.

Communication isn’t just a final step; it’s what turns evidence into action. Excited to learn from others’ approaches as well.

Warm regards,

Priyanka

Thank you for the very interesting and important discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute and look forward to hearing diverse perspectives and further ideas. Here are some thoughts that I have on this topic:
 

Effective communication is critical for a successful evaluation. Communication should help to go beyond disseminating papers.  Communication strategies should serve as a dynamic tool to actively promote learning, engagement, and use of evaluation results throughout the process. 

1. Planning Communication from the Start . 

It is highly important to develop a clear communication plan of action early in the evaluation process. For example, the plan could envisage the engagement with stakeholders by providing briefs on what they should expect, or the use of visual tools in agreeing on the key results with the project team. Interactive communication tools help foster dialogue and engagement, especially with technical experts, who may not be familiar with the evaluation. or specialized audiences.

2. Engaging Stakeholders Throughout the Process. 

Involving stakeholders proactively via workshops, focus groups, or other special events facilitates the sense of ownership. For example, involving beneficiaries’ voices or using participatory methods during data collection and reporting can build trust and enhance the credibility of findings.

3. Using Innovative and Multi-channel Tools. 

Innovative communication tools such as podcasts, photo-stories, social media postings or interactive web pages can target different audiences and contexts, ensuring that messages are vivid, attractive and accessible. For instance, short videos or infographics can make findings compelling and shareable, especially on social media platforms, broadening reach and impact.

Key Challenges in Integrating Communication into Evaluation: 
 

1. Timing 
One of the primary challenges is integrating communication activities seamlessly across the evaluation timeline. Communication should not be an afterthought but embedded from the planning stage through to dissemination. But very often, evaluations are not planned in advance, and have to be conducted within limited timeframes.

2. Resource and Capacity Constraints
Effective communication demands adequate time, skills, and resources. Many evaluators and organizations lack dedicated communication specialists or training in strategic communication. As a result, communication efforts may be either too weak or inconsistent, reducing their effectiveness.

3. Diversity of Stakeholder needs 
Different audiences have varying needs and levels of engagement. For example, senior decision makers may prefer executive (concise) summaries, while field-based project staff and beneficiaries would be interested in more detailed reports. Balancing these needs and managing expectations can be difficult.

4. Communicating Sensitive Findings
Communicating not so positive results requires diplomacy and tact. Building trust through early stakeholder involvement in reviewing the findings. Potentially sensitive or negative findings need to be framed in a constructive manner, focusing on areas of improvement, rather than on criticisms and highlights of previous mistakes.
 

As an agriculturist and a teacher from Somalia, I believe communicating evaluation goes far beyond writing detailed reports — it’s about translating evidence into action. In the agricultural sector, we often work with farmers, communities, and policymakers who may not always read long technical reports. Therefore, effective communication means presenting evaluation findings in clear, practical, and relatable ways.

To communicate evaluation well, we need:

Simplicity and clarity – using local languages, visuals, and real-life examples instead of jargon.

Timely sharing – delivering key insights while decisions are still being made.

Participatory communication – involving stakeholders in discussions so they understand and own the findings.

Storytelling with data – showing human impact and change, not just statistics.

When evaluation results are communicated this way, they inspire improvement, strengthen accountability, and motivate sustainable change — especially in agriculture and rural development programs. 🌾

I would push the bar even higher. Should we really be talking about communicating findings—or about co-generating them? In most evaluations, the richest learning happens not through reports or presentations, but in the moments spent with primary stakeholders: debating, reflecting, and exchanging perspectives.

It’s less about designing perfect communication plans and more about being alert and opportunistic—recognizing when a conversation, observation, or joint reflection becomes a genuine learning space worth seizing. Those moments are where understanding deepens and ownership grows.

We often assume that communication happens through formal products, but the people who can truly drive change are usually not the ones reading reports. They are the ones living the realities we’re trying to understand. That’s where communication—and learning—need to start and stay.

Thanks Silvio for raising this important issue.

For me, communicating effectively means accepting that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. The traditional evaluation report still has its place, especially for accountability and documentation purposes—it’s necessary and should remain part of the package. But to really reach different audiences, we need to go beyond that. Short, tailored products like one-pagers, infographics, slide decks, or even social media content can make a big difference. Depending on the audience, this might mean a Twitter thread, an Instagram carousel, or even a short TikTok reel summarizing key messages.

AI tools have also made this much easier. Platforms like Notebook LLM now allow you to create podcasts or other multimedia products from scratch, often at no cost. UN Women’s Evaluation Unpacked series is a great example of how evaluation findings can be turned into engaging, accessible content. I think there’s a lot of untapped potential in these newer formats to make evaluation results more relatable and widely shared.

One of the biggest challenges is that communication and dissemination often aren’t built into the evaluation process from the start. They’re usually treated as an afterthought—something to do at the end if there’s time or budget left. As a result, dissemination either happens in a very limited way or doesn’t happen at all.

Ideally, communication should be part of the planning and resourced properly, just like data collection or analysis. It should also be seen as something that continues beyond the final report—helping keep the findings alive and relevant. I think clients and institutions could give more importance to this, treating communication as a core part of learning and follow-up, not just the “last step” of an evaluation.

Good point. I fully agree that communication needs to integrated early on in the evaluation process to enhance learning, engagement and (thus) use. We have a chapter on communication in our guide 'Managing for sustainable development impact. An integrated approach to planning, monitoring and evaluation'. We see communication as the ' glue that binds it all together'. You can read about the role of communication in this adaptive management approach; how we can understand communication ( including conceptual models of communication); how to overcome obstacles to communication and communicating effectively; and developing a communication strategy. I could imagine some of this may be useful evaluation as well. You can download the book for free: https://managingforimpact.org/ Hope this helps. 

Beyond the Final Report: Communicating Evaluation Well

Effective communication, in my experience as an evaluator, is essential to making sure that results are comprehended, appreciated, and used. It goes much beyond simply creating a final report. Any review should take communication into account from the beginning, not simply at the conclusion. Identifying audiences, comprehending their priorities, and choosing forms and channels that will effectively reach them are all made easier with advance planning.

I've discovered that simplicity and clarity are crucial. Excessively technical wording can obscure even robust findings. Findings can be made more approachable and remembered by using visual forms like infographics or dashboards, case studies, and storytelling. Involving stakeholders at every stage of the assessment process, as opposed to just at the end, encourages ownership, introspection, and the purposeful application of findings.

However, there are still difficulties. What we can accomplish is frequently limited by time and financial constraints, and it is still challenging to gauge the true impact of communication—whether knowledge is retained, discussed, and used. We need techniques to understand how our work is influencing learning and decision-making because tools and statistics by themselves cannot fully convey the story.

I want to ask the group to consider and communicate: 

 

• Which strategies or resources have aided you in effectively communicating evaluation results?
• How do you increase awareness and ownership by involving stakeholders at every stage of the review process?
• What innovative or low-cost techniques have improved the accessibility and actionability of your findings?
• How do you determine if communication initiatives are genuinely promoting learning and application of results?

The link between evidence and action is communication. We can improve our collective practice and make sure that evaluation actually promotes learning, accountability, and better results by exchanging experiences, examples, and lessons.

Beyond the final report writing; it is really difficult for evaluators to ensure that findings reach the targeted audience effectively. It is a complex process to communicate the evaluation findings to diverse stakeholders. Therefore, it is recommended to prepare a matrix to disseminate the findings or products for different people who can use them in the language best understood by them, maximizing the benefit of the work. The evaluation needs to identify different stakeholders/audience; say donors, program staff, project beneficiaries etc. and place the intended use of findings no.1,2,3 etc. under each category of audience and align them well with the specific objectives/ agenda of different stakeholders/audience to maximize the impacts and use the end product in a practical way. The low-cost participatory strategies, virtual meetings, role plays, demos, audio- visual products help in sharing the findings in accessible and engaging ways. End term evaluation is a method to assess whether the communication efforts of formative or mid-term evaluation findings have led to  actual use and changes in the behavior, attitude or status at the ground or not.

The Crisis of Purpose:
The most significant barrier is the perception of evaluation itself. For many organizations, evaluation has regrettably become an ad hoc exercise in compliance rather than a genuine opportunity for learning and accountability. This fundamental misclassification dictates the communication strategy, leading to reports that are designed to satisfy a funding requirement rather than to inform and engage a diverse audience. When the primary goal is compliance, the communication effort is minimal, often defaulting to a simple upload to an obscure section of a website.
The Visibility Paradox:
The practice of merely sharing evaluation reports through organizational websites is a prime example of this compliance-driven mindset. Organizations rarely follow up by checking their logs and analyzing view counts, which is a missed opportunity for accountability and learning about their audience. The reasons for low engagement are multi-faceted and include:

•Language and Accessibility: Reports often use highly technical jargon and are only available in a single language, immediately alienating key local stakeholders.

•Lack of Awareness: Without a dedicated, proactive communication strategy, most stakeholders—especially those outside the immediate organizational circle—remain unaware that the report even exists.

•The "Boring Report" Syndrome: As noted, reports are often boring to read. Their length, dense text, and academic structure are designed for a specialized audience. 

The Solution: Transforming Reports into Engaging Products

To overcome the "boring report" syndrome and increase the utility of evaluation findings, organizations must embrace a multi-product communication strategy. Instead of relying solely on the lengthy report, they should invest in creating short, accessible products that cater to diverse communication habits. This includes:

•Short Clips/Videos: Utilizing simple animation or interviews with project participants to convey key findings and recommendations in under two minutes.

•Infographics and Data Visualizations: Transforming complex data tables into easily digestible visual summaries for social media and policy briefs.

•Blog Posts and Articles: Creating narrative-driven content that highlights the human impact and actionable recommendations, suitable for wider press and partner newsletters.

These products are not substitutes for the full report but act as gateways, offering people an easy glimpse of the report's value and encouraging deeper engagement.