7 takeaways: How can evaluation make evidence more accessible, understandable and actionable for citizens?

On 28 September 2026, in observance of the International Day for Universal Access to Information, this Future of Evaluation dialogue discussed how evaluation can make evidence more accessible, understandable and actionable for citizens.

Access to information is fundamental to transparency, accountability and meaningful participation. Yet, evaluation evidence tends to remain within technical reports, institutional platforms and specialist audiences, limiting its potential as a public good. The dialogue examined strategies for extending evidence to citizens, highlighting practical approaches across knowledge translation, storytelling, open data and artificial intelligence (AI) driven innovations.

In case you missed the conversation, watch the recording.

Seven takeaways from the dialogue

1. Making evidence public is only the first step towards making it accessible. A report can be public and still out of reach for citizens. It may be written in technical language, available only online, or leave citizens unsure what the findings mean for them and what should change as a result. Access can be better judged by whether people can find evidence, understand it and act on it. The number of reports published says little about whether an evaluation reached its audience, while tracking who reached the evidence and which decisions it informed says more about the success of an evaluation.

2. Accessibility depends on language, format and where evidence is placed. Most evaluation reports are out of reach for the communities served by the programmes. The reports can be long, dense with technical and statistical jargon, often published in one language, and posted on institutional websites that few citizens visit. Making evidence accessible means providing short summaries in plain language, translations into local languages and using formats like infographics, short videos, radio and audio. It also means going where people already gather, like community meetings, local radio, youth groups, or community councils. However, simplification needs care—over-simplifying evaluation results risks distorting the evidence, requiring evaluators to strike a thoughtful balance between accessibility and accuracy.

3. Recognize communities as knowledge partners rather than data sources. Evidence is gathered from communities, analysed in evaluation offices, discussed at conferences and stored in reports. The evidence rarely returns to the communities who provided it. Involving communities in defining evaluation priorities, setting criteria, and interpreting findings leads to evidence that reflects local priorities, draws on contextual knowledge, and drives meaningful action.

4. Build evaluation literacy across the ecosystem. Evidence cannot be utilized to its full extent when the people receiving it are not equipped to interpret it. Evaluation literacy, meaning the ability to read evidence critically, weigh and apply it to decision-making, should be developed across the full development ecosystem rather than within evaluation offices alone. This includes programme staff, government officials, civil society organizations, academia and think tanks. Local government deserves particular attention, since it is closest to communities and often the channel through which evidence reaches them.

5. The barriers to accessibility are institutional and political, not only technical. Evaluation is often seen as technocratic, with questions, criteria and methods set by technical specialists and funders, leaving little room for the affected communities to shape any of it. Institutional discomfort with poor performance also restricts what gets shared, and political sensitivities can further narrow access. Multi-country and meta-level evaluations add a different barrier, surfacing national and regional findings that override local context and leaving people unable to recognize their own situation in the evaluation. There is no single approach to sharing evaluation evidence that fits every setting and audience.

6. AI can bring evidence to more people, but it cannot replace evaluators' judgement. AI offers evaluation an opportunity to make evidence available at scale, such as condensing a hundred-page report into a one-page summary, translating it into local languages, and presenting the findings in whichever format an audience prefers, from audio to a visual scorecard. AI can also help draw lessons across large numbers of evaluations far faster than manual review. The risks arise when AI is used to analyse and interpret evidence without proper human oversight. Entering sensitive evaluation data into these tools also raises privacy concerns. AI can also reproduce epistemic bias, marginalize local languages and knowledge, and create data-governance risks. If not used appropriately, it may also shift control over evidence away from communities. AI should therefore remain an assistive tool, not an evaluator or decision-maker.

7. Close the feedback loop, provide equitable access and safeguard youth in evaluation. The Youth in Evaluation champion from UNICEF highlighted the organization's experience in engaging young people in evaluation processes. While young people are often consulted in evaluations through advisory groups or digital polling, they rarely receive updates on how their contributions were used. Meaningful youth engagement requires clear purpose and defined feedback loops. Furthermore, while digital channels expand reach, they risk excluding youth without access to the internet and digital platforms. Finally, in some contexts, contributing to an evaluation can expose young people to risk, so their protection should be built into the evaluation design.

The Eval4Action Future of Evaluation dialogues are a series of forward-looking discussions that explore innovative and adaptive approaches to evaluation. Designed to make evaluation more influential in a rapidly changing and complex world, these dialogues bring together a diverse range of voices—from experts to young evaluators—to share knowledge and highlight ways to future-proof the field of evaluation. Each monthly dialogue is aligned with an international action day, ensuring the conversations are timely and relevant to a global discourse.

This was the third dialogue of Season 2. The fourth dialogue will take place on 15 October 2026 in observance of the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Register.

This article was written with AI support with human authors in the lead.