Practical evaluation guide

What are the 6 OECD-DAC criteria? Using relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability

An explanation of the 6 OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, their selection, example evaluation questions and use in public-sector, international cooperation and nonprofit programs.

Six perspectives for examining a program

Main takeaway

The 6 OECD-DAC criteria are an international framework for evaluating interventions through relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. They help organize evaluation issues, but it is important to select criteria according to purpose rather than applying them all mechanically. [1]

The OECD-DAC criteria are a widely used evaluation framework referenced in public-sector evaluation, foundation grants, nonprofit programs and social impact evaluation as well as international cooperation.

Simply using the 6 criteria as report chapters does not produce a good evaluation. Each must be translated into specific evaluation questions.

Choose criteria that fit the evaluation purpose

Review the six perspectives and turn them into evaluation questions and reported judgments.

Meaning of the 6 criteria

Relevance examines fit with needs and policy objectives. Coherence concerns consistency with other policies and support; effectiveness concerns objective achievement; efficiency concerns resource use; impact concerns broader change; and sustainability concerns prospects for continuing effects.

In evaluation, turn each abstract term into questions tailored to the program.

Meaning of the 6 criteria
Criterion	What it examines	Example evaluation question
Relevance	Fit with needs and objectives	Did it fit the target group's problems?
Coherence	Consistency with other policies	Did it overlap with or complement existing support?
Effectiveness	Objective achievement	Did expected outcomes occur?
Efficiency	Resource use	Are costs and time reasonable in relation to outcomes?
Impact	Significant higher-level positive and negative effects	Were there unintended positive or negative changes?
Sustainability	Continuation of effects	Will change continue after support ends?

[1]

You do not have to use every criterion

The OECD calls for interpreting the 6 criteria according to evaluation purpose, stakeholder information needs and program context rather than applying them mechanically. State which criteria receive emphasis and why.

The following are examples proposed by this site, not mandatory criteria for each purpose. Where funders or commissioners specify requirements, check the correspondence with those as well.

Improvement: emphasize relevance, effectiveness and implementation processes
Continuation decisions: emphasize effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability
Policy decisions: emphasize coherence, impact and efficiency
Grant reporting: emphasize relevance, effectiveness and learning

[1]

Points to consider in reporting

For each DAC criterion, present evidence, judgment and limitations together. Saying effectiveness is high is insufficient. State the evidence, scope and constraints behind that judgment.

There can be trade-offs between criteria. For example, low short-term efficiency may reflect investment intended to improve long-term sustainability.

Practical framework or suggestion

Turn criteria into evaluation questions

Using DAC criteria as headings alone does not identify evidence to collect. Make questions specific: for relevance, did it fit the target group's needs; for effectiveness, to what extent did expected outcomes occur; for sustainability, are conditions for continuation after support in place?

Then link each question to indicators, sources and judgment criteria. This matrix makes evidence easier to trace when writing criterion-specific conclusions and makes evaluation judgments transparent to readers.

Do not use criterion names as questions unchanged
Prioritize criteria according to the evaluation purpose
State evidence and limitations for each criterion
Discuss trade-offs separately where relevant

Practical framework or suggestion

Fictional example; not actual results

Organize conditions for continuing outreach consultation through 3 perspectives

A fictional example for illustration: consider whether outreach consultation across several districts should continue next year.

Perspective	Evidence to collect	Provisional judgment and remaining questions
Relevance	Interviews with non-users	Weekday daytime sessions have difficulty reaching employed people
Effectiveness	Application starts and missing follow-up data	Some progress; overall outcomes including people with unknown status remain uncertain
Efficiency	Travel costs, staff time and consultation records	Compare costs with alternatives including evening appointments

What this example supports

These 3 perspectives alone do not establish overall value. Separately state how far coherence, sustainability and broader effects will be addressed in this evaluation.

Common errors in judgment

Give all 6 criteria the same amount of text

How to revise: State priorities and reasons for exclusions according to the decision purpose

Reason: The purpose is to answer necessary questions rather than match formatting.

Assume efficiency is high because delivery was inexpensive

How to revise: Compare outcomes, quality, alternatives and time as well

Reason: Low expenditure alone does not establish effective resource use.

Put it into practice next

Use the evaluation criteria worksheet to organize perspectives to use and reasons for those excluded

View an example and open the worksheet Read the method explanation

Frequently asked questions

How do the 5 and 6 DAC criteria differ?

Coherence has now been added, giving 6 criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.

Can DAC criteria be used in domestic programs?

Yes. Beyond international cooperation, they are useful for organizing evaluation perspectives in policy, grant-funded and nonprofit programs.

Can DAC criteria alone provide an evaluation design?

Criteria are perspectives, not concrete data collection methods. Translate them into evaluation questions, indicators and a data collection plan.

References and checked sections

Evaluation Criteria
OECD
Section consulted
Principles for using evaluation criteria / Six lenses to analyse an intervention and its results
How it relates to the text
The 6 criteria and principles for applying them according to purpose and context
Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)

Content updated: 2026-09-13Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checking Cite this page Report a correction

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “What are the 6 OECD-DAC criteria? Using relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/guides/dac-criteria/

Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.

Suggest a correction or improvement to this page

Change history

2026-09-13 — Added links to original sources, scope of definitions, and fictional completed and judgment examples. Revised unsupported advice prescribing fixed counts or timing.