Evaluating reports

Have started this weekend looking at the evaluation sections of the final reports to see what was carried out. It's strange. I'm sure the grant applications say you have to evaluate, and many of them say they did but it seems they are evaluating resources made or coming from the project than the actual project itself. Many use an external evaluator, but so far what they do seems disparate and not structured or based on any research or framework etc. Maybe I need to get hold of those external evaluation reports to find out. In fact this is something I hadn't considered when I wrote the proposal. I mean the need to contact external evaluators etc.
Need to revisit the altc site and check and also revisit the c&c framework to remind myself what it is they are recommending.
I wonder whether their recent review found the same thing, am I just replicating what they have already done?

Reading Owen to remind myself of forms and approaches.
Proactive
Clarificative
Interactive
Monitoring
Impact
Question, can I apply these to projects as they were written for programs.
Can I read each final report and see if any of the evaluations fall undone of those forms? Or if they don't then could. Suggest they ought to.
If that was the case then the interactive could ask questions and suggest one of these approaches in the future.