Evaluation Criteria (DAC)

When to Use

The OECD-DAC evaluation criteria are the most widely adopted framework for structuring development evaluations. Use them when:

Designing evaluation terms of reference — Most donors (CRS, IFRC, USAID, Global Fund) expect evaluations to address the five DAC criteria. Your evaluation questions should map directly to these criteria.
Structuring evaluation reports — The criteria provide a logical organization for presenting findings. Each criterion becomes a section of your evaluation report.
Meeting donor requirements — Many donor policies explicitly require DAC criteria-based assessments. CRS Policy 3, for example, mandates that evaluations assess relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.
Comparing evaluations across programmes — Using a common framework enables you to synthesize findings from multiple evaluations and identify cross-cutting lessons.
Conducting utilization-focused evaluations — The criteria help stakeholders focus on the most important questions about a programme's merit and value.

The DAC criteria are less useful when you need a more specialized evaluation framework (e.g., contribution analysis for attribution questions, or outcome harvesting for unpredicted results). In such cases, the DAC criteria can still be applied within those methods as a reporting structure.

| Scenario | Use DAC Criteria? | Better Alternative | |----------|-------------|-------------------| | Standard donor evaluation | Yes | — | | Attribution-focused evaluation | Yes, as framework | Contribution Analysis | | Unpredicted outcomes | Alongside | Outcome Harvesting | | Process evaluation only | Partially | Process Evaluation | | Comparative portfolio review | Yes | DAC criteria enable cross-programme comparison |

Key Principles

The OECD-DAC criteria provide a comprehensive framework for judging the merit and value of development interventions. Five interrelated criteria form the core of the framework:

Relevance — The extent to which the intervention's objectives and design align with beneficiary needs, partner country priorities, and donor strategies. A relevant intervention addresses the right problem in the right way for the right people. Relevance asks: Is this the right programme for this context?

Efficiency — The relationship between outputs and resources consumed. Efficient interventions achieve maximum results with minimum inputs, avoiding waste in financial, human, and time resources. Efficiency asks: Are we getting the most value from what we invest?

Effectiveness — The extent to which the intervention's objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved. This criterion focuses on the degree of outcome achievement relative to stated targets. Effectiveness asks: Did we do what we said we would do?

Impact — The positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by the intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Impact looks beyond immediate outputs to assess broader changes in the lives of beneficiaries and the systems they operate within. Impact asks: What lasting difference did we make?

Sustainability — The continuation of benefits from the intervention after external funding ends. Sustainability examines whether benefits will endure through continued local ownership, institutional arrangements, financial mechanisms, and environmental considerations. Sustainability asks: Will the benefits last?

These criteria are not sequential steps but interrelated dimensions that together provide a holistic assessment. An intervention can be effective (achieving objectives) but not sustainable (benefits end when funding stops), or efficient (low cost) but not relevant (addressing the wrong problem). The value of the DAC framework lies in requiring evaluators to consider all five dimensions rather than focusing narrowly on output delivery.

Key Components

A well-constructed evaluation using the DAC criteria includes these essential elements:

Evaluation questions mapped to criteria — Each of the five DAC criteria should have at least one dedicated evaluation question. For example: "To what extent was the intervention relevant to beneficiary needs?" or "What is the evidence of long-term sustainability of outcomes?"
Evidence sources for each criterion — Different criteria require different evidence. Relevance draws from stakeholder feedback and context analysis. Efficiency requires financial and operational data. Effectiveness and impact rely on outcome and impact indicators. Sustainability needs longitudinal data and institutional analysis.
Clear definitions of each criterion — While the DAC criteria have standard definitions, each evaluation should operationalize them for the specific context. What does "sustainability" mean for this particular intervention? What time horizon defines "impact"?
Weighting or prioritization — Not all criteria carry equal weight in every evaluation. A humanitarian emergency evaluation may prioritize relevance and efficiency over long-term sustainability. Document your rationale for any differential weighting.
Integration of cross-cutting themes — Modern evaluations integrate gender, environment, and accountability considerations within each criterion. For example, assessing whether benefits reached women and marginalized groups is part of relevance and effectiveness.
Stakeholder perspectives — Each criterion should incorporate views from different stakeholder groups. Beneficiaries may judge relevance differently than donors. Document these perspectives and any tensions.
Rating framework — A consistent approach to rating each criterion (e.g., highly relevant, moderately relevant, not relevant) enables comparison across evaluations and clear communication of findings.

Best Practices

Ensure all five criteria are addressed in evaluation design. The evaluation must use relevant evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Each criterion should have dedicated evaluation questions that guide data collection and analysis. (MEAL Rule: EX136_S012)

Derive evaluation questions from the criteria. Evaluation questions must be reflective of relevant evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability). This ensures the evaluation systematically addresses all dimensions of merit and value. (MEAL Rule: EX136_R046)

Limit the number of evaluation questions. Try not to have too many evaluation questions — a maximum of 5-7 main questions will be sufficient. It is better to have a few good indicators than too many poor ones. Focus on answering core questions well rather than spreading resources across numerous superficial inquiries. (MEAL Rule: EX092_R008, EX53_R051)

Consider evaluation design carefully. Key considerations include: What are the evaluation questions? What is the evaluand (what to evaluate)? What methods (qualitative, quantitative, mixed)? What is the scope? What level of rigor is appropriate? What resources are available? Balance methodological rigor with practical constraints. (MEAL Rule: EX46_P018)

Avoid over-reliance on participation in evaluation. While participatory approaches have value, over-reliance can be time consuming, costly, hard to manage, and may lack a healthy balance of outside perspective if it becomes purely self-evaluation. Maintain appropriate external independence while incorporating stakeholder input. (MEAL Rule: EX57_W009)

Balance scope with resources. An evaluation with wide scope but very limited resources can be worse than no evaluation at all if it leads to superficial conclusions as evaluator ratings become unreliable. Ensure the evaluation design matches available resources to produce credible findings. (MEAL Rule: EX57_W010)

Integrate cross-cutting themes throughout. Assess gender responsiveness, environmental sustainability, and accountability mechanisms within each criterion rather than as separate sections. For example, evaluate whether the intervention was relevant to women's needs as part of the relevance assessment.

Use consistent rating scales. Develop a clear rubric for rating each criterion (e.g., 1-5 scale with defined anchors) to ensure ratings are comparable across evaluations and stakeholders understand what different ratings mean.

Common Mistakes

Treating the criteria as a checklist. The DAC criteria are not boxes to tick but interrelated dimensions requiring thoughtful analysis. Simply listing findings under each criterion without exploring connections (e.g., how efficiency decisions affected effectiveness) misses the holistic value of the framework.

Insufficient resources for credible ratings. If there are insufficient resources to cover the entire survey universe, using a partial universe would limit the ability to generalize the survey data (and the evaluation results) to the smaller universe. This undermines the credibility of effectiveness and impact ratings. (MEAL Rule: EX51_W015)

Over-emphasizing participation at the expense of independence. Avoid over-reliance on participation in evaluation — it can be time consuming, costly, hard to manage, and may lack a healthy balance of outside perspective if it becomes self-evaluation. External independence is crucial for credible findings. (MEAL Rule: EX57_W009)

Superficial conclusions from under-resourced evaluations. An evaluation with wide scope but very limited resources can be worse than no evaluation at all if it leads to superficial conclusions as evaluator ratings become unreliable. Better to narrow the scope and produce credible findings than attempt everything poorly. (MEAL Rule: EX57_W010)

Ignoring sustainability in short-term evaluations. Many evaluations focus only on immediate outputs and outcomes without assessing whether benefits will continue. Sustainability requires looking beyond the evaluation period to consider institutional arrangements, financial mechanisms, and local ownership.

Confusing effectiveness with impact. Effectiveness measures whether intended outcomes were achieved; impact assesses broader, longer-term changes including unintended effects. An intervention can be effective (meeting targets) while having limited or even negative impact (unintended consequences outweigh benefits).

Applying criteria without contextual adaptation. The criteria are standard but their application must be contextualized. What constitutes "relevance" for a health intervention differs from governance programming. Define each criterion operationally for your specific evaluation.

Examples

Health Programme — Sub-Saharan Africa

A 5-year malaria prevention programme was evaluated using all five DAC criteria. Relevance assessment found the intervention aligned well with national health priorities and community needs, with 90% of beneficiaries reporting the intervention addressed their most pressing health concerns. Efficiency analysis revealed cost per bed-net distributed was 15% below budget due to streamlined supply chains. Effectiveness findings showed 75% of outcome targets achieved, with malaria incidence reduced by 40% in target areas. Impact assessment identified unintended positive effects: reduced household medical expenses and improved school attendance among children. Sustainability evaluation found mixed results — community health worker networks showed strong local ownership, but dependence on donor-funded medicines raised concerns about long-term access. The evaluation's strength was explicitly connecting efficiency decisions (supply chain investments) to effectiveness outcomes, demonstrating how operational choices affected programme results.

Governance Programme — Southeast Asia

A democracy and governance initiative faced challenges in demonstrating impact due to the long timeframes required for political change. The evaluation team adapted the DAC framework by: (1) defining intermediate impact indicators that could be measured within the programme timeframe, (2) using process tracing to document contribution to policy changes, and (3) incorporating stakeholder perceptions of relevance through focus groups with government officials and civil society. The relevance criterion incorporated qualitative assessment of alignment with local governance priorities. Efficiency included analysis of cost-effectiveness compared to alternative governance interventions. Effectiveness measured both output delivery and outcome achievement. Impact used contribution analysis to assess the programme's role in observed policy changes. Sustainability examined institutionalization of reforms within government structures. This adaptation demonstrated how the DAC criteria could be applied flexibly while maintaining their core analytical value.

Education Programme — South Asia

A teacher training programme evaluation focused heavily on effectiveness (measuring changes in teaching practices) but initially neglected sustainability. Stakeholder feedback revealed that while trained teachers improved practices during the funded period, many reverted to previous methods after funding ended due to lack of ongoing professional development support. The evaluation was revised to include sustainability assessment, examining institutional arrangements for continued training, budget allocations for professional development, and career incentive structures. This revision transformed the evaluation from a simple effectiveness assessment to a more comprehensive analysis of whether the intervention would produce lasting change. The revised evaluation recommended establishing a sustainable training fund, which was subsequently incorporated into the programme's follow-on design.

Compared To

The DAC criteria are one of several evaluation frameworks. Key differences:

| Feature | OECD-DAC Criteria | CEB Standards | Results-Based Evaluation | |---------|-----------------|---------|-------------------| | Primary focus | Five criteria for assessing merit and value | Eight evaluation standards (utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy) | Focus on achievement of objectives and outcomes | | Structure | Five distinct but interrelated criteria | Eight standards with sub-standards | Objective-focused framework | | Best for | Donor-required evaluations, comparative assessments | Internal quality assurance, evaluator certification | Programme management, performance monitoring | | Flexibility | Standard definitions, adaptable application | Prescriptive standards | Tied to programme objectives | | Donor acceptance | Widely accepted across development sector | More common in institutional evaluations | Common in performance management |

The DAC criteria are particularly valuable when donor requirements specify their use or when comparing evaluations across programmes. The CEB standards provide a broader quality framework for evaluations themselves rather than criteria for assessing interventions.

Relevant Indicators

12 indicators across major donor frameworks (CRS, IFRC, USAID, Global Fund) relate to DAC evaluation criteria application:

Evaluation framework quality — "Proportion of evaluations using all five DAC criteria in assessment framework" (CRS)
Evaluation question design — "Percentage of evaluation questions mapped to specific DAC criteria" (IFRC)
Criteria coverage — "Number of evaluation recommendations addressing each DAC criterion" (USAID)
Stakeholder alignment — "Degree to which evaluation findings address stakeholder-defined relevance criteria" (Global Fund)

Related Tools

Evaluation Matrix Builder — Tool for mapping evaluation questions to DAC criteria and organizing assessment structure
Evaluation ToR Template — Guided template for developing evaluation terms of reference with DAC criteria integration