The DAC criteria, Part 2. Why change?

Share this post

Given the good contributions of the DAC criteria noted in Part 1 of this series, let us now turn to why they need to be rethought. Based on my experience, I draw the following conclusions about requirements for evaluation criteria suitable for (sustainable) development contexts.

We need a set of criteria that ensures that we actually evaluate contributions to ‘development’. As a set, the DAC criteria are necessary but not sufficient to determine the worth, significance or merit of an intervention for development. Important aspects are absent, creating a false sense of confidence about the extent to which they can lead to a sound, defensible synthesis judgment about contributions to development.

This argument will be elaborated in a next post. Suffice it to say that at least coherence and synergy (or complementarity) have to be additional criteria, and impact and sustainability have to be connected and carry a high and equal/or weight in any judgment about success. This issue is of particular importance in the Global South – another discussion in a next post in the series.

We need a set of criteria that directs, yet is flexible and encourages creative thinking about what is essential to evaluate. In development evaluation the DAC criteria are used to direct the evaluation questions, rather than the other way around. A too-limited and pre-determined set of criteria, used without careful justification, can make us lazy and stifle original thinking about priorities for evaluation. This can easily lead to the omission of important evaluation questions, and prevent in-depth insights or innovations based on fresh thinking about evaluation criteria and questions.

We need evaluation criteria with nuanced definitions and descriptions. Later versions of definitions or interpretations of the criteria tend to be more nuanced. Compare for example Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability in the this version with this one, the more detailed descriptions by UNDP, or the adjusted criteria by ALNAP for use in the humanitarian sector in 2006. However, improved practice does not necessarily follow across organisations, as commissioners do not necessarily track or engage with such improvements. It is equally unlikely that evaluators do such tracking, or negotiate with commissioners to ensure that such improvements are included in terms of reference.

We need an approach that facilitates, even compels synthesis judgments across criteria. We seldom discuss the conceptual and practical strengths and weaknesses of the DAC criteria for synthesis judgments about development. Making a synthesis judgment in development contexts is often technically and politically challenging, but this does not remove our responsibility to engage with the matter. Our failure to do so weakens efforts at a more holistic understanding of development. It inhibits debate and learning about priorities, trade-offs and influences.

In a very useful book Tom Schwandt notes four ways in which this “Achilles heel” of evaluation practice can be addressed (through rule-governed, algorithmic and rubric-based approaches; intuitive-based holistic approaches; ‘all-things-considered’ approaches; and deliberative approaches). Rubrics and quantitative approaches - weighing, scoring, aggregating - are used by some organisations, but in most evaluations I see there is little systematic work or convincing reasoning towards a synthesis judgment.

We need criteria suitable for evaluation beyond projects and programmes. The DAC criteria exacerbate the notion that evaluation for development is all about projects and programmes (or sometimes about policies or events). Evaluation evolved out of ‘programme evaluation’ in the Global North, which for decades tended to involve tinkering within a particular sector. Similarly, the fragmented nature of the aid system has meant that the most common evaluations are aimed at one or portfolios of interventions of an organisation or partnership.

But countries in the Global South face the difficult challenge of enabling and sustaining positive national development trajectories in the long term across many sectors and institutions, usually from a low base. In LMIC countries development is also more severely influenced by interconnected global and regional dynamics and power asymmetries. This requires thinking beyond interventions to cross-cutting issues, thematic areas, systems and so on as foci for evaluative attention.

We need criteria that can shift some attention away from results or ‘impact’ to more thoughtful engagement with design and implementation. If we treat development as ‘complex adaptive system’ (CAS), we need much more thoughtful and systematic prospective and retrospective examination of intervention designs and the extent of their tailoring to theory, to context, to development, and to development as CAS. We also need to move implementation or so-called process evaluation away from a fixation with logframes or rigid RBM-determined implementation and compliance assessments. It is unfortunate that the adoption of adaptive management and the useful practice of developmental evaluation has been limited to date.

DAC Criteria

Issues for consideration per criterion

In addition to my own observations, the following summary of concerns by criterion draw from the thoughtful contributions to DAC criteria discussions by Thomas Chianca (2008), Caroline Heider (2017) and Marc Cohen and Olivier Shingiro (2017), who have all made highly relevant points about the suitability of current set of five DAC criteria. The latter article is particularly pertinent in view of the increasing focus on SDG evaluation.

Relevance has been defined in a manner that results in nearly everything being relevant in some way or another to development policies, strategies and/or stakeholder needs. In the SDG era this will be amplified; it is very likely that every intervention will be relevant to something related to ‘sustainable development’. Relevance as currently defined will therefore definitely not help to counter the dilution and fragmentation of development funding. Most importantly, there is no sense of the significance and timeliness of what has been planned, done or effected. Perspectives on relevance also differ among stakeholders: whose voice will count (the most), and on what basis?

Efficiency does not capture non-monetary costs, waste or the hidden costs of (negative) social and environmental impacts. It focuses almost entirely on the use of the least costly resources, and even when input-based targets are achieved, it is not clear whether they have actually served their purpose efficiently. The definition of this criterion also initially did not emphasise the importance of considering alternatives; this aspect remains neglected in practice.

More generally, the DAC criteria fail to capture what might be important related considerations in some cases, such as cost-effectiveness, economic rates of return, social returns on investment or value for money.

Effectiveness as DAC criterion reinforces my argument that so-called ‘development evaluation’ does not necessarily mean ‘evaluation for development’ as it does not sufficiently take account that development is a complex adaptive system. Caroline Heider notes that Effectiveness embodies the accountability dimension of evaluation. The criterion has two interpretations: development effectiveness as synthesis judgment, or the effectiveness of specific interventions. But in both cases analyses tend to focus on whether objectives were achieved without encouraging questioning, in the first place, their appropriateness or importance in that particular context. The objectives might have been set based on development partners’ political priorities rather than stakeholders’ main needs, or at the wrong time and/or out of sequence with other initiatives that are essential for development. ‘Success’ is often too vaguely defined or poorly conceptualised, and evaluators tend not to engage with the values, understanding of ‘change’ or the development ideologies upon which the so-called effectiveness or success has been defined.

Evaluators also often struggle to distinguish between the criteria of Impact and Effectiveness. Implementers work towards predetermined outcomes without being encouraged to take risks, to improvise or adjust strategies and even outcomes or impacts where well justified. Instead, they often try to – or have to - game the system. Evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention in isolation of what goes on around it can be quite meaningless if issues such as coherence and synergy between interventions or policies are not taken into account. Similarly, any (negative) unintended and unanticipated consequences of an intervention need to be accounted for when assessing effectiveness, in particular when there is no integration of the Effectiveness, Impact and Sustainability findings into a synthesis judgment.

Impact as criterion suffers from a variety of challenges when not conceptualised from a complexity perspective. It should be conceptually linked to Sustainability. Far more attention should be given to impacts on different groups (rather than averages) and on ensuring that negative social, environmental, technological, or economic impacts are traced and included in assessments. Interventions ideally need to unleash changes that cascade or ripple out and cause further changes to take place, but how often are positive impacts claimed in the short term without any notion of whether they will enable any positive changes to sustain in the long run (as long as it is desirable)?

Caroline points out a swathe of challenges and weaknesses around the impact evaluations which have taken over evaluation practice in the last decade: The quality of many of these studies are not high, and the results inconclusive and limited to narrow phenomena, often concluding that more studies are needed. Intervention designs continue to be too linear and confuse between outputs, outcomes and impacts, while designs, implementation strategies and evaluations are done without cognisance of the implications of viewing development through a complexity lens.

Sustainability is often in practice considered only in terms of financial or programme sustainability. Analytical depth is sorely lacking. Evaluations tend to neglect environmental aspects and do not to refer explicitly to the interconnections between socio-cultural, economic and environmental components of development. Furthermore, as Valuing Voices’ work on Sustained and Emerging Impact Evaluation has recently very articulated, determining the potential for, or the actual sustainability of positive impacts has been greatly neglected.

I have been greatly concerned about this latter issue since my early years as evaluator when I saw how few interventions were planned and done in a manner that yielded results that endured. Already in 2002 during a presentation in South Africa I asked Michael Patton about the need for evaluating programme designs and implementation strategies specifically for issues of impact sustainability. I have also referred to it in various presentations and articles (see for example here and here) and have always tried to address it in my own evaluations. It is also one of the main reasons for my focus on the role of culture in development and in evaluation. It is imperative that we integrate the findings derived from assessments using the Impact and Sustainability criteria.

Although the focus on the related concept of resilience is welcome, the Sustainability criterion continues to be critical, and has to be addressed with far greater vigour and nuance than we have done to date.

In summary

A too-narrow conceptualization and too-rigid application of a set of criteria might create comfort zones that are too comfortable. They can also prevent us from evaluating for development using a complexity lens. As a result, critical areas that need attention in the evaluation of development are being neglected. This is even more so when considering the ambition and interconnectedness of the Global Goals of the 2030 Agenda, which is now widely acknowledged as the overarching global framework for the conceptualisation of development worldwide.

Given all these considerations, in the next two posts in this series I will make a proposal for a new approach to the identification of evaluation criteria for sustainable development.

Share this post

7 thoughts on “The DAC criteria, Part 2. Why change?”

  1. I would counsel prudence lest we end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. The DAC criteria have successfully supplanted prior assessment approaches that mistakenly focused on inputs and outputs rather than outcomes and impacts. They tackle merit (efficacy), worth (relevance) and value (efficiency). They address risk and uncertainty (sustainability and impact). They were forged through hard-won lessons of development practice.

    As I see it, many of the criticisms levied against the DAC criteria have to do with their frequent misuse: excellent examples are displayed above. But let us not be naive: other critiques are more sinister. They originate from fee dependent auditors and management consultants whose clients tend to view their goals as unimpeachable and are therefore threatened by objective reviews that give pride of place to citizens’ legitimate concerns.

    The fact is that the DAC criteria have stood the test of time and should be adopted more widely by motivated, well trained and independent evaluation practitioners. Disseminating their principled and expert use would help ensure that social interventions originating from public, private and voluntary actors alike are routinely subjected to independent evaluative scrutiny from a public interest perspective.

    This said, two complementary evaluation criteria deserve more frequent usage. First, performance ratings are needed to disentangle the distinctive contributions of individual partners to intervention outcomes. This is standard evaluative practice in the multilateral development banks. Second, it makes eminent sense to rate coherence as well to help ensure that individual interventions tap synergies at the programmatic level. This criterion has been widely and successfully adopted in the humanitarian sector.

    For a more comprehensive treatment of these issues see: Robert Picciotto, The Logic of Development Effectiveness: Is it time for the broader evaluation community to take notice? Evaluation, Volume 9, Issue 2, April 12, 2013. (

  2. Bob, your point is well taken, and worth guarding against. The DAC criteria have been and remain very important directing influences on our evaluation practice, and we should not lose that valuable asset. If you read my third contribution in this series you will see that I do not espouse dropping them. Rather, we should sharpen them and add some so that we have a larger, more effective “toolbox” from which to select. While their essence will remain, they have weaknesses that should be addressed, some of which you mention. The interesting issue is what a process today will look like that will give the same credibility, gravitas and wide usage to a set of well-conceptualised criteria. So much has changed in our landscape.

  3. I’d make two comments. Firstly have they really stood the test of time, or is it that we have reverse engineered their benefits into what is in fact good evaluation practice. They certainly haven’t prevent a focus on inputs and outputs. Secondly in my experience have substantially reduced the ability of evaluators to know what criteria actually are and the difficult business of actually negotiating them. They’ve taken this critical discourse off the table for discussion. Indeed I’ve had all manner of shit poured over me in workshops where I’ve raised these issues. Yes let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater but an honest appraisal of the health of the baby in the first place should not be ignored.

  4. Well said Zenda, I agree with your line of thought.
    Considering the complexity of Global Goals and the interconnectedness of social issues and development.There is a need for an integration of other components into the DAC criteria to make it more encompassing.
    There is nothing wrong in calling for a review of the DAC criteria… is high time.

    Yinka Akibu (Nigeria)

  5. I generally agree with your critique, although Bob Picciotto is perhaps right that the fault often is in rigid or outright faulty interpretation of the criteria. In my experience with the GEF and UNDP, ‘relevance’ is seldom in question as, like you suggest, anything can be construed as relevant (in the case of international organizations, to put it bluntly, it’s relevant if the government asks for it). But relevance in my mind has to be tied to issues of impact and sustainability. If an intervention does not lead to lasting change in the thing we want and need to change, how relevant can it be?

    1. Juha
      My bigger problem is that “Relevance” does not give any indication of its “Significance” for development progress. I realise significance is hard to define, but it can be done through rubrics that make clear the basis for an assessment of significance. An interesting question is whether we can develop a generic idea of what “Significance” could mean in any development context, or whether it will depend completely on values, development models, etc. in specific contexts.

  6. isha wedasinghe miranda

    Most significant changes I am looking at is that of shifting DAC criteria on beneficiary ownership.
    The shift can have two dimensions. i. Evaluation of the programme with extended version ii. **Other one on beneficiary.
    *The Extended version could be DAC criteria + HR, EFGR, (Gender Perspective) Climate change
    ** With SDGs frame work – (i am in the process of working on this )

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top