The OECD-DAC evaluation criteria explained simply
The six OECD-DAC evaluation criteria in plain words: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, with sample questions.
Short answer
The OECD-DAC evaluation criteria are six lenses for judging a project or programme: relevance (right things?), coherence (how well it fits), effectiveness (achieving objectives?), efficiency (resources used well?), impact (what difference?) and sustainability (will benefits last?). They are not a method. Choose the criteria that fit your purpose and turn each into specific questions.
Key points
- Six criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability.
- They are questions to ask, not a method for finding the answers.
- Do not apply all six mechanically; pick those that serve your evaluation purpose.
- Equity runs through all the criteria: ask who benefits and who is left out.
- Turn each criterion into two or three questions your project can answer.
What are the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria?
The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) defines six criteria that evaluators use to judge a project, programme or policy: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. The OECD calls them a normative framework used to determine the merit or worth of an intervention. They are the basis on which evaluation judgements are made.
In plain words, the criteria describe what a good project looks like. It should respond to real needs, fit with other work, achieve what it set out to do, use resources well, make a real difference and leave benefits that last.
They are not a method. The OECD stresses that the criteria set out the questions to ask, not how to collect the evidence. You still need to choose methods such as interviews, surveys and document review.
What does each criterion mean?
The OECD guiding question for each criterion is below, with a plain explanation.
| Criterion | OECD question | In plain words | Sample project question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance | Is the intervention doing the right things? | Do the objectives and design respond to people's needs and priorities, and still do if circumstances change? | Do the activities match what communities say they need today? |
| Coherence | How well does the intervention fit? | Does it fit with other work, inside your organisation and with other actors, without duplication? | Did we coordinate with other organisations working in the same townships? |
| Effectiveness | Is the intervention achieving its objectives? | Were the objectives achieved, or likely to be, including for different groups? | Did the target outcomes happen, and were results the same for women and men? |
| Efficiency | How well are resources being used? | Are results delivered in an economic and timely way? | Were activities on time, and could the same results have cost less? |
| Impact | What difference does the intervention make? | What higher-level effects, positive or negative, intended or not, has it generated? | What changed in people's lives or in local systems because of the project? |
| Sustainability | Will the benefits last? | Are the net benefits likely to continue after support ends? | Will the water committee keep running without our funding? |
How do you use the criteria? Five steps
- Start from your purpose. Why are you evaluating, and who will use the findings? The OECD says the evaluation questions and the intended use should shape how the criteria are interpreted.
- Choose the criteria that fit. For a midterm review, relevance, coherence, efficiency and effectiveness matter most, because impact is too early to judge. For a final evaluation, add impact and sustainability.
- Write two or three questions for each chosen criterion. Use the sample questions above and adapt them to your project.
- Decide the evidence. For each question, list the data source: monitoring data, financial reports, interviews, focus groups or surveys. A table that links questions, sources and methods is called an evaluation matrix.
- Judge and explain. For each criterion, give a clear finding and the evidence behind it. Avoid scores without reasons.
These steps fit directly into the terms of reference for a final evaluation.
What did the 2019 update change?
The OECD revised the criteria in 2019 and published adapted definitions. Key changes:
- Coherence was added as a new criterion. It looks at how well an intervention fits with other interventions, both within one institution and with other actors in the same context.
- Equity is built in. Relevance now considers equity conditions; effectiveness includes "differential results across groups". The OECD says this encourages deeper analysis of exclusion and power. Equity is not a separate criterion, but it should be considered under each criterion.
- Efficiency includes timeliness. Delivery within the intended or reasonably adjusted timeframe counts.
- Sustainability looks at several types of capacity, including financial, economic, social, environmental and institutional, and at the risks and trade-offs between them.
- Flexible use. The OECD gives two principles: apply the criteria thoughtfully, and tie their use to the purpose of the evaluation rather than applying them mechanically.
What about humanitarian work?
Humanitarian agencies often add criteria to suit emergency work. For example, the IFRC framework for evaluations lists ten criteria, including relevance and appropriateness, coverage, connectedness, equity, and protection and safety, in addition to those above. If your donor or network has its own list, use it, and check how it relates to the OECD set. In a conflict-affected or fast-changing setting like Myanmar, questions on relevance over time and on protection and safety are often especially important.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Using all six by habit. Too many criteria lead to a long, shallow report.
- Confusing outputs with effectiveness. Counting trainings held is not the same as achieving the objective.
- Treating impact as proof you caused the change. Be honest about contribution and about other factors.
- Ignoring who benefits. Always split findings by group. See our guide on disaggregated data.
- Judging sustainability at the end. Plan for it from the start. Our guide on an exit strategy from day one explains how.
How EMPO can help
EMPO is a reliable Myanmar-based training and consultancy provider and one of the country's leading names in practical NGO training, with 1,200+ people trained and 15 partner organisations. We teach MEAL, including evaluation planning, in English and Burmese, online and in person across Myanmar. See our training services or contact us to plan a session.
Sources
- Evaluation Criteria — OECD, 2024
- IFRC Framework for Evaluations 2024 — IFRC, 2024
Questions people ask
What is the difference between effectiveness and impact?
Effectiveness asks whether the project achieved its own objectives and results. Impact asks about higher-level and longer-term effects, positive or negative, intended or not. Impact is the 'so what' question: did anything change that matters to people?
What changed in 2019?
The OECD adapted the definitions and added coherence as a sixth criterion. It also stressed using the criteria thoughtfully and flexibly, with more attention to equity and differences between groups.
Do we have to use all six criteria?
No. The OECD says the criteria should not be applied mechanically. Cover them according to the needs of stakeholders and the context. A midterm review may focus on relevance, coherence, efficiency and effectiveness.