Evaluation is essential for effective development co‑operation, providing systematic and objective evidence on what works, what does not, for whom and why. Evaluation aims to enhance relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation principles and quality standards guide the set-up and conduct of credible, useful evaluations that can produce credible evidence to improve policies and programmes and ultimately achieve better development impacts. Strong evaluation systems rely on clear objectives and roles, independent and well‑resourced functions, and participatory approaches tailored to specific needs.
Evaluating development co‑operation
Abstract
Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of a planned, ongoing or completed intervention, its design, implementation and results. It assesses expected and unexpected results, looking beyond inputs and activities to understand causality, or the drivers of observed changes.
Evaluations should provide credible and useful insights to inform decisions, support learning and accountability, strengthen governance, and improve development impacts.
The DAC Evaluation Criteria outline the desired attributes of an intervention and the measures against which it should be evaluated. These criteria set a quality standard: all sustainable development interventions should be relevant and coherent, use resources efficiently to achieve objectives and positive impacts that last.
The OECD DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance and the Quality Standards for Development Evaluation provide norms to guide evaluations. The Principles address the overall role of evaluation within institutions and the way it should operate whereas the Quality Standards guide individual evaluation processes and products.
Note: Section D.4 of OECD DAC Peer Review Analytical Framework sets out the expectations of the DAC on evaluation.
Source: OECD (1991), Principles for evaluation of development assistance, https://one.oecd.org/document/OCDE/GD(91)208/en/pdf; OECD (2010), Quality Standards for Development Evaluation, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264083905-en; OECD (2021), Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully, https://doi.org/10.1787/543e84ed-en.
1. Clear objectives, roles and scope underpinned evaluations. Institutions clearly define the role of evaluation and its contribution to achieving development goals. Evaluation policies clarify roles and responsibilities, set standards, and inform the timing and programming of evaluations (including what is evaluated and when, and coverage standards such as requirements for an evaluation, set by geography, size or theme).
AFD’s evaluation policy sets out criteria for conducting programme evaluations, emphasising that they should fill the knowledge gap, match AFD’s strategy priorities and add value.
Evaluation policies in Australia, Austria, Switzerland distinguish between different types of evaluation. They set out the mandate for the central evaluation unit and describe the role of evaluation in the development agency.
Sida’s evaluation handbook presents Sweden’s approach to evaluation, including principles and criteria, roles and relationships. It also contains a step-by-step guide for the planning, preparation and commissioning of evaluations.
New Zealand’s evaluation policy stresses utility, partnership and participation as core principles underpinning evaluation quality.
2. Independence supports credible, relevant and ethical evaluations. Approaches and methodologies should fit the evaluation questions and the intervention being evaluated to produce credible evidence on topics of most interest, and mitigate bias. Agencies protect the independence of evaluation functions through a clear reporting lines, the use of independent staff and external consultants, and separate evaluation budgets. Working independently does not mean evaluation functions are isolated from the institution, in fact many work closely with stakeholders and partners to develop their work programmes, and evaluation teams are increasingly engaging programme staff and managers to identify learning needs and keep evaluations relevant.
DEval in Germany and EBA in Sweden are independent entities, providing independent evaluations and scientifically sound evidence to decision makers.
In Belgium, the Special Evaluation Office reports directly to the parliament via the Minister for Development Co-operation and of Major Cities.
In Denmark, all evaluations are undertaken by external consultants and experts. Evaluation reference groups, which include internal and external stakeholders, provide feedback and comments during the evaluation process, and Evaluation Department staff provide management and oversight to ensure credible, ethical conduct.
3. Evaluations findings, conclusions and recommendations are useful and used for learning and accountability: Evaluation findings should influence the decisions and actions of policy makers, managers and staff. Many agencies have management response systems requiring decision makers to respond to evaluation findings and recommendations and many track follow-up actions. Evaluation results need to be communicated effectively and tailored to each stakeholder’s interests.
The Netherlands’ evaluation unit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (IOB) and the United Kingdom’s Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) make all reports public and report to parliament. Management is required to react and explain how evaluation results will be used.
Canada’s Evaluation Services and Learning Division has a specific unit on Knowledge Translation that supports the analysis of evaluation evidence to translate it for decision makers.
In Denmark, evaluation results are communicated to the Minister for Development Co-operation, a summary is forwarded to parliament and a press release posted on the public MFA website.
Ireland's Evaluation Manual supports accountability for development results by communicating evaluation findings to a variety of users; findings are presented through illustrations, charts, interactive web tools, and videos to meet each users’ needs.
4. Sufficient capacity and resources support independence, and the effective and efficient delivery. Quality, credible evidence requires adequate human and financial resources. The approach and methodology should be selected based on what will work best to answer the questions at hand. Efficient and effective evaluations rely on related systems in the project cycle such as programme design, monitoring and statistics, and can be supported by technology, including AI tools.
The United Kingdom’s evaluation strategy prioritises investment in individual skills and training.
Czechia, Denmark and Iceland, which have limited staff resources in the evaluation unit, work strategically with external consultants and academic experts, as well as participating in joint evaluations.
The Netherlands and Canada conduct their own evaluations, using external support only for specific skills or tasks.
The Inter-American Development Bank’s Independent Evaluation Department carries out ex ante assessments to determine the evaluability of new projects and the strength of related systems, which helps ensure they can resource evaluations appropriately.
Canada and Finland, as well as the UN Sustainable Development Group, are using AI tools to leverage evaluative evidence and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of evaluations.
5. Evaluations are participatory and address stakeholder needs. Consulting end users helps focus evaluations on learning and accountability needs. Meaningful involvement of stakeholders, including partner countries and communities impacted by the intervention, strengthens quality and relevance of evaluations.
Norway’s Independent Evaluation Department (Eval) multi-annual Evaluation Programme was developed through close consultation with Norad and other partners. It outlines the themes where evaluations are expected to generate useful knowledge and actionable evidence to inform decisions by Norwegian authorities and partners. The Programme presents planned activities for the current period and identifies tentative themes for subsequent years. It can be updated in response to changing needs and circumstances.
Under the auspices of the COVID-19 Global Evaluation Coalition, Colombia, Finland, Uganda and UNHCR co-managed an evaluation of efforts to protect refugee rights during the pandemic.
Japan includes partner countries in tracking or implementing follow up actions and management responses and in setting the organisation’s evaluation work programme.
How do we know if DAC members are moving in the right direction?
Institutions encourage a culture of results and learning, where staff and partners seek out, learn from and act on findings. Decision makers question assumptions and critically think about an intervention’s design, implementation and actual results.
Knowledge gaps are identified and resources are allocated to address them through evaluations.
Evaluations generate credible evidence about what worked, what didn’t and why, helping institutions to improve policies, funding allocations and ways of working.
Evaluation findings meet stakeholder needs:
Management, staff and implementing partners have the information to improve and adapt interventions.
Intended beneficiaries experience improved outcomes and fewer negative effects.
Government expectations are met concerning oversight, accountability and evidence-based policy making.
Media and the public benefit through transparency and accountability on spending.
Institutions invest sufficient human and financial institutional resources for evaluation in proportion to their development co-operation portfolio. Although evaluations have costs, they are an investment in improved effectiveness and can ultimately improve efficiency and value-for-money.
Better Evaluation, Global Evaluation Initiative [website].
Impact evaluations and development : NONIE guidance on impact evaluation, World Bank Group.
Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Evaluation Systems in Development Co-operation 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Principles for evaluation of development assistance, Development Assistance Committee.
Applying a Human Rights and Gender Equality Lens to the OECD Evaluation Criteria, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Managing for Sustainable Development Results: Guiding Principles, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Evaluating Development Activities: 12 Lessons from the OECD DAC, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Evaluating Peacebuilding Activities in Settings of Conflict and Fragility: Improving Learning for Results, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series.
Guidance for Managing Joint Evaluations, DAC Evaluation Series, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Network on Development Evaluation (EvalNet), OECD [website].
DAC Evaluation Resource Centre (DEReC), OECD [website].
More Framework principles are available on Development Co-operation TIPs • Tools Insights Practices.
