EvalCompassEvalCompass
Evaluation frameworksInternational cooperationODA evaluationEvaluation criteriaJICAMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Japan

OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria

OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria
Also known as: DAC criteria、6 ODA evaluation criteria

Examine program value through 6 perspectives: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. Define questions and priorities according to the evaluation’s purpose. [1]

DAC 6-criteria evaluation matrix worksheet — openRead the practical guideReferences and checked sections
Difficulty
Intermediate
Cost
Medium
Duration
Illustrative estimate (adjust for scale and staffing): applying the criteria takes 1–2 days during evaluation design; the full evaluation depends on program scale
Content updated: 2026-10-07Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examples

How it works at a glance

The 6 OECD-DAC criteria provide complementary perspectives for judging program value. Relevance concerns fit with needs; coherence concerns relationships with other interventions; effectiveness concerns objective achievement; efficiency concerns resource use; impact concerns significant changes; sustainability concerns continued benefits. [1]

The criteria are not research methods themselves. Develop specific questions and choose methods according to intended use, the program and stakeholder needs. There is no need to mechanically weight all criteria equally. [1]

Evaluation6 CriteriaRelevanceRelevanceDoes it meet needs?CoherenceCoherenceDoes it fit other interventions?EffectivenessEffectivenessWere the targets met?EfficiencyEfficiencyWere resources used well?ImpactImpactDid it produce significant change?SustainabilitySustainabilityWill benefits continue?
The six OECD-DAC evaluation criteria. Coherence was added in the 2019 revision. A global standard for evaluating international cooperation.

When to use it and when it is unsuitable

When to use it

  • Conducting final or midterm evaluations of ODA and international cooperation projects
  • Comparing multiple projects or programs using common dimensions
  • Preparing evaluation reports for accountability to funders or donors
  • Systematically developing evaluation questions under the 6 criteria

When it is unsuitable

  • Treating the 6 criteria as fixed research methods. They provide perspectives for questions; the actual research design is determined separately.
  • Allocating equal coverage to all criteria prevents investigation of questions important to intended use.

Participants, roles, and deliverables

Participants and roles

Evaluation team (1–3 evaluation specialists) and program officers. Midterm and final evaluations often include external evaluators.

Main deliverables

  • Evaluation matrix
  • Findings and ratings by criterion
  • Lessons and recommendations
  • Evaluation report

Implementation steps

  1. Confirm purpose and scope
    Clarify whom the evaluation serves (donors, implementing agencies or beneficiaries) and agree with stakeholders which of the 6 criteria to prioritize. Equal treatment of all criteria is unnecessary.
  2. Develop evaluation questions
    Select criteria fitting the purpose and turn them into questions suited to the program and intended use. A fixed number of questions per criterion is unnecessary.
  3. Prepare the evaluation matrix
    Create a matrix listing criteria, questions, indicators, information sources and collection methods. This prevents duplicate collection and identifies unanswerable questions early.
  4. Data collection
    Combine methods such as literature and report review, interviews, site visits and questionnaires to gather information needed for each criterion.
  5. Analyze and judge each criterion
    Organize data by criterion and answer evaluation questions with evidence. Define any rating scale, such as a 4-point scale, in advance.
  6. Identify lessons and recommendations
    Integrate analysis across the 6 criteria and specify lessons and recommendations for future project design or policy. Prioritize learning specific to this program over generalities.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

  • Provides an international shared vocabulary so evaluators across agencies and countries can discuss the same criteria
  • Combining the 6 criteria supports comprehensive assessment of diverse program dimensions
  • Supports comparability, accumulating lessons and learning across evaluations
  • Adding coherence in 2019 strengthened the perspective of policy coherence for development (PCD)

Limitations

  • Mechanically applying the 6 criteria may miss fundamental questions about the program
  • Unspecified weights across criteria can leave overall judgments dependent on evaluator discretion
  • Information on impact and sustainability is often insufficient at evaluation time, making adequate answers difficult

Common pitfalls

  • Allocating equal research time to all 6 criteria results in shallow answers to key questions; select priorities in advance
  • Judging effectiveness only by target achievement and ignoring the appropriateness of objectives (relevance) or external factors
  • Reports become lists by criterion without explaining overall reasons or possible responses

Conditions of use and evidence

  • Choose the scope and emphasis of criteria according to evaluation purpose and context. [1]
Fictional example; not actual results

Prioritizing counseling service reach and coordination

The following fictional example prioritizes fit with residents’ needs and coordination with other agencies ahead of next year’s service redesign.

Criterion (priority ★)Evaluation questionMeasurement indicatorsInformation sourceCollection method
Relevance ★Can people seek counseling when they need it?Preferred hours and reasons for non-useUsers and non-usersVoluntary interview
Coherence ★Are there duplications or gaps involving referral destinations?Examples of interrupted or duplicated referralsCoordination records between servicesRecord comparison

Common errors in judgment

Common mistake

Assuming that averaging all criterion scores produces an objective conclusion

How to revise

Explain priorities and judgment criteria and label unevaluated areas as such

ReasonAveraging different value judgments does not resolve missing evidence.

Common mistake

Judging impact through participant satisfaction

How to revise

Define significant changes and the information needed to examine them

ReasonReactions and broader changes are different perspectives.

Organize your thinking by writing

DAC 6-criteria evaluation matrix worksheet

A practical template is available to fill in and print on A4 paper.

Open worksheet

Related practical guides

The 6 OECD-DAC criteria

Related methods

Logical Framework (Logframe / LFA)Results-Based ManagementEvaluation Design MatrixContribution AnalysisIndicator Design

References and checked sections

  1. 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
    Choose the scope and emphasis of criteria according to evaluation purpose and context.
    Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checkingCite this pageReport a correction

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-10-07. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/methods/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
  • — Corrected statements and procedures identified during content checks (U05). Preserved the order, number and labels of input fields and the section structure.
  • — Updated explanations to correspond to the sources and added method-specific fictional completed examples, judgment examples and a change log.