• Home
  • About Us
    • Overview
      • Section1
        16 years of experience in helping the world find data-driven solutions.
    • Who we are
      • About Us
      • Our Team
      • Careers
      • Survey Point
    • What we do
      • Our Projects
      • Publications
      • Practice Areas
      • Blog
      • Resources
      • Contacts
    • Media
      • News
      • Events
      • Gallery
  • Our Projects
  • Our Team
  • Careers
  • Sambodhi Panels
  • Capacity Building
Site Logo

Resources

Popular Search thematic

Frameworks

  • OECD DAC Criteria
  • Human Rights and Gender
  • CCPC Framework

Process

  • Logframe Approach

Designs

  • Regression Discontinuity
  • Pre-Post Test Design
  • Randomised Control Trials
  • Difference in Difference

Methods

  • Structured Surveys
  • Focus Group Discussions

Approaches

  • Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
  • RAPID Outcome Assessment
  • Value for Money Evaluation
  • SROI
  • Process Evaluation
  • Outcome Mapping
  • Outcome Evaluation
  • Network Evaluation
  • Needs Analysis
  • Most Significant Change
  • Formative Evaluation
  • Ex-Ante Evaluation
  • Ex-Post Evaluations
  • Survey templates

Equity and Poverty Alleviation

  • Life Table: Overview, Types, and Application
  • Measuring Health Inequity : Concentration Index and Curve
  • Measuring Inequality: Lorentz Curve and Ginni Index

Tests

  • Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) : Overview, Type, and Application
  • Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA): Overview and Application
  • Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA): Overview, Type, and Application
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Frameworks
  • OECD DAC Criteria

OECD DAC Criteria

Table of Contents
  • List of recommended resources:
    • For a broad overview
    • For in depth understanding
    • Case Study
    •  
    •  
    • Further Reading
    • References:

Evaluative criteria provide an overarching normative framework for intervention assessment; and play a vital role in guiding the evaluation questions (UNEG, 2011). However, given the vast thematic areas development projects work across, a standardized criteriai that work across different ‘evaluands’ (Mathison, 2005) – i.e. different objects of evaluation – is highly useful. Towards this end, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – a unique international forum of international development aid organizations – developed, the DAC criteria in 1991, to evaluate how effectively their development co-operation efforts and policies were working towards the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

While used and accepted widely, given the limitations of the criteria; there was a felt need for the criteria to be revised (especially, following the 2015 agreement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.) (OECD, 2019). Pursued by the DAC Network on Development Evaluation (Eval Net), revisions were made to expand the criteria, and were then adopted by the OECD-DAC in 2019. The DAC criteria are used widely by several multi-lateral organizations such as the United Nations, and governments to benchmark their policies and programs (UNEG, 2011).

The updated framework consist of six evaluation criteria, defined by OECD DAC as follows (OECD, n.d.):

  • Relevance: “The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change.”

  • Coherence: “The compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector or institution.”

  • Effectiveness: “The extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups.”

  • Efficiency: “The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way.”

  • Impact: “The extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects.”

  • Sustainability: The extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue.

                            Source: (“Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully,” 2021)

Also, OECD DAC gives two principles that guide practitioners using these criteria. The website list these principles as follows (OECD, n.d.):

The criteria should be applied ‘thoughtfully’ – contextualized to the evaluation, the nature of the intervention, and the stakeholders involved – to support ‘high quality and useful evaluation’. The ‘evaluation questions’ and ‘what one intends to do with the answers’, should ‘inform how the criteria are interpreted and analyzed’. 

List of recommended resources: #

For a broad overview #

Blog Post: Evaluation Criteria by OECD

The OECD webpage defines the six evaluation criteria and provides the principles for their use.

Guidance Document: Revised Evaluation Criteria: Definitions and Principles for Use

This document describes the revised Evaluation Criteria, their definitions and use, and well as their principles of usage. A shorter version of the same is available on the following link: Better Criteria for Better Evaluation: Revised and updated evaluation criteria

Video: How to Use OECD DAC Criteria to Ask Questions

This video is prepared by Neerman, and gives a simple overview of OECD DAC criteria. For a written overview of the same, read this Blog post , guiding practitioners on asking the right evaluation questions through the use of the OECD DAC Criteria.

Blog Post: Using the Evaluation Criteria in Practice
Published by the OECD, this research paper guides practitioners using OECD DAC criteria focusing on practical aspects. It explores different approaches to support the thoughtful application of the criteria, in varied institutional settings with differing strategic priorities. It outlines how the criteria can prompt evaluators to consider differential experiences and impacts by applying a gender lens, and support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and the wider 2030 Agenda
For in depth understanding #
Webinar: Evaluation Criteria: What has changed, why, and why does it matter?

Published by the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG), this webinar gives an overview of consultation process to update old OECD DAC criteria and discusses the motivation behind these changes and their significance. Furthermore, it has a detailed discussion on using new OECD DAC criteria and critical principles for its application.

Evaluating Humanitarian Action using the OECD-DAC Criteria

Published by ALNAP, this document provides practical support on using he OECD Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) criteria in evaluation of humanitarian action. It provides brief guidelines for good practice in methods for the evaluation of humanitarian action.

Case Study #

Social Protection: Women & Child Development Sector Report

Developed by DMEO, NITI Aayog, this case study demonstrates the use of OECD criteria to evaluate the performance of Women and Child Development sector in India.

Capacity Building: Job and Skills Sector Report

Developed by DMEO, NITI Aayog, this case study demonstrates use of OECD criteria to evaluate job and skilling schemes like Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) in India .

  #

 

Agriculture: The new OECD evaluation criteria: what changes for agriculture and food security?

Presented by Megan Kennedy (Senior Policy Analyst OECD) and Rachel Bedouin (FAO Evaluation Office), this webinar discusses the new OECD DAC criteria, the rationale for revisions made to the criteria, its pros and cons, and its’ relevance in the present context. It illustrates this with a case example of the capacity development of the irrigation department in Afghanistan.

 

  #

 

Further Reading #

 

Working Paper: The OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria: To Reform Or To Transform?

Developed by Deval – German Institute for Development Evaluations, this document discusses the need for reforming the OECD DAC in the light of the 2030 UN Agenda, in increasing its operational usefulness, as well as streamlining the differences between the different criterion.

Journal Article: The OECD/DAC Criteria for International Development Evaluations: An Assessment and Ideas for Improvement

Written by Thomas Chianca, this paper provides a critical review of the old OECD DAC criteria. It proposes significant recommendations for changes, including the revision of definitions, the addition of key missing criteria, and discussions about the level of importance of the criteria

 

Report: OECD DAC Evaluation: Summary of consultation responses

Developed by World Bank, this document gives a detailed account of stakeholder consultation regarding OECD DAC criteria highlighting changes in evaluation criteria

References: #

Better Criteria for Better Evaluation-Revised Evaluation Criteria Definitions and Principles for Use. (2019). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/revised-evaluation-criteria-dec-2019.pdf

Better Criteria for Better Evaluation-Revised Evaluation Criteria Definitions and Principles for Use. (2019). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/revised-evaluation-criteria-dec-2019.pdf

Evaluation Criteria. (n.d.). OECD. Retrieved December 16, 2021, from https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm

Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation-Towards UNEG Guidance Guidance Document. (2011). United Nations Evaluation Group. http://www.uneval.org/document/detail/980   Mathison, S. (2005). Encyclopedia of evaluation (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412950558

OECD DAC. (2018). OECD DAC Evaluation Criteria: Summary of Consultation Responses. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/DACCriteria/ConsultationReport_EvaluationCriteria.pdf

What are your Feelings
Share This Article :
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
Still stuck? How can we help?

How can we help?

Human Rights and Gender
Table of Contents
  • List of recommended resources:
    • For a broad overview
    • For in depth understanding
    • Case Study
    •  
    •  
    • Further Reading
    • References:

South Asia

C - 126, Sector 2, Noida - 201301, Uttar Pradesh
+91 120 4056400-99, +91 120 4127069
bd@sambodhi.co.in

South-East Asia

#132C, Street 135, Sangkat Psar Doeum Thkov, Khan Chamkarmorn Phnom Penh
+855 81738017
bd@sambodhi.co.in

Sub-Saharan Africa

Sambodhi Ltd 1 Floor, Acacia Estates Building, Kinondoni Road Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania
+255 787894173
bd@sambodhi.co.in
Copyright © 2023 Sambodhi Research and Communications Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved.