Evaluation writing exposes the best intentions. Everyone involved wants the plan to have worked, so reports become more output-centric because outputs can easily be enumerated and outcomes cannot.
We write in response to your evaluation framework. That can take the form of standardized criteria, a theory of change, or even what your funder actually asked you to address through these questions. The first tool is the Summarize tool. We’ll start with that.
Evaluations provide funders with the information they need to continue, change, or stop a program. A report solely focused on activities does not show any of the three. Real evaluations should state what participants experienced, how much of that change the program can should take credit for, and the cost for that change.
Evaluations are almost always glowing. That’s because the program designers supply the evaluation prompts. Each output becomes an impact statement. Quotes are glowing and the section on what did not work is omitted. Funders read lots of these and quickly identify the glowing pattern.
The report stands on its own as it guides the reader through a step-by-step evaluation of the theory of change, monitoring data, interviews, and any comparison group using the answers to the evaluation questions. It presents a substantive response to each of the evaluation questions, and when the data does not provide an answer to an evaluation questions, the report tells the reader the question and explains why.
Data requires analysis and interpretation for meaning to be drawn. If I am to draw meaning from data, then I must decide how best to interpret it. If double-counted participants occur, that gets noted. Replacement of moving quotes is the practice with quotes that paint a truer picture. All that is presented remains concise, appropriate, and secure against claims of funders who may not publicly display support.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical evaluation report | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary report | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Standard report | 3,000 | $300 | $3 | $303 |
| In-depth report | 6,000 | $600 | $6 | $606 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
As detailed as the brief and the word count allow. Because you pay by the word rather than by tier, depth is a decision you make rather than a package you upgrade to. Tell the writer what the reader already knows and they will pitch it there.
Yes. Send the template, a previous example, or the structure you are required to use, and the writer works inside it. If a required section does not fit the material honestly, they will flag it rather than pad it out.
Yes, and the report will outline who ran it and who wrote it. Self-evaluation is acceptable as long as the method and the constraints are made clear. It’s not acceptable to present an internal report as if it were a report done by an external evaluator.
As the report states, that’s the part funders can use, and that’s where the report spends its length. Programs that report failures that were analyzed are more likely to get refunds than what one would expect. Programs that report vague success are not.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
The sample size was 214 responses. More importantly, that information appears in the second paragraph of the report instead of being placed in an appendix. Percentages always retain the base number. There are agency reports that mean to mislead and do neither.
I have bought some market reports that cite nothing at all. This one footnoted every figure back to a source I could open. One statistic could not be verified so they left it out and told me why, I would rather have that than a confident number I cannot defend.
The brief was more general than I expected; the writer gave me a heads up by stating this before constructing it. We had a 20-minute call. That also added to my time that I had not scheduled for this. Hence, rating this as a four rather than a five. However, it seems to be the strongest asset we have.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees