The six OECD DAC evaluation criteria are the standard framework that structures nearly every bilateral donor evaluation. The original five criteria were adopted by the OECD Development Assistance Committee in 1991; coherence was added in the 2019 revision to account for how programs interact with other interventions in the same space.
The Six Criteria
Relevance. Is the program addressing the right problem for the right population? Relevance asks whether objectives align with national priorities, sector strategies, and the actual needs of intended beneficiaries, and whether that alignment still holds as context changes. A program can be well-executed and still score poorly on relevance if the underlying problem diagnosis was wrong.
Coherence. Does the program align with, reinforce, or contradict other interventions operating in the same space? Internal coherence covers consistency with the same donor's other programs and policies. External coherence covers alignment with other donors, government programs, and civil society efforts. Added in 2019 to address the reality that most programs operate in crowded fields.
Effectiveness. Did the program achieve its objectives and produce the intended outcomes? Effectiveness is the core accountability question. It requires clear outcome statements, credible measurement, and honest assessment of what the program did and did not change.
Efficiency. Were resources used optimally? Efficiency covers cost per outcome, timeliness of delivery, and value for money relative to alternatives. It is the criterion most often answered badly, usually because proposal budgets and outcome data were never designed to speak to each other.
Impact. What wider effects, positive and negative, intended and unintended, can be attributed to the program? Impact is broader than effectiveness. It includes ripple effects on non-targeted populations, systemic change, and consequences the program did not plan for.
Sustainability. Will the benefits continue after donor funding ends? Sustainability covers financial continuity, institutional ownership, environmental durability, and whether the behaviors or systems the program built are self-reinforcing.
How Evaluations Apply the Criteria
Not every evaluation answers all six criteria with equal depth. A good evaluation TOR specifies which criteria the evaluation will prioritize and why. Typical patterns: mid-term reviews emphasize relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency because the program is still in motion; endline evaluations add impact and sustainability because those only become measurable late; formative evaluations emphasize relevance and implementation coherence because the goal is to fix the design.
Treating all six as equal produces a 100-page evaluation that answers nothing well. Weight them.
Proposal Context
Name DAC criteria explicitly as the evaluation framework in any bilateral-donor proposal. USAID, FCDO, EU, GAC, DFAT, GIZ, SIDA, and most other bilateral funders expect at least the endline evaluation to be structured around the six criteria. Internal evaluations and evaluations funded by foundations or multilaterals sometimes use different frameworks, so check the solicitation.
A strong proposal evaluation plan does three things: (a) names DAC criteria as the structuring framework, (b) states which criteria the evaluation will prioritize given the program stage and available data, and (c) sketches two or three key evaluation questions aligned to each priority criterion. A proposal that ignores DAC criteria on a bilateral-donor evaluation signals inexperience, and reviewers notice.
Common Mistakes
Treating all six criteria with equal weight. An evaluation that tries to answer everything with the same depth produces shallow findings across the board. Prioritize based on program stage, decision needs, and data availability.
Confusing effectiveness and impact. Effectiveness is whether the program hit its stated objectives. Impact is the wider set of consequences, including ones the program did not intend. An effective program can still have poor impact, and a program that missed its formal targets can still have meaningful impact.
Related Topics
- Evaluation - Overview of evaluation types and purposes
- Summative Evaluation: Endline evaluations and DAC criteria weighting
- Theory-Based Evaluation: Framework that pairs well with DAC criteria
- Sustainability: The sixth criterion in depth
- Evaluation Questions: Writing questions aligned to priority criteria