Development Partner Profile¶
The profile is the complete record for one development partner: every indicator it reported, its result in the previous round where there is one, and the average for its comparison group alongside.
Use it to look a single figure up. To read a partner's results as a whole, start with the Deep Dive.
Finding a partner¶
Choose Development Partner on the toggle, then pick from the dropdown. The organisation type filter beside it narrows the list.
What the page holds¶
A summary at the top — the partner's organisation type, how many partner countries it reported in, and how much of the framework it reported on.
The four dimensions, each with the partner's score and its comparison group's average beside it.
Every indicator, grouped by dimension and component, each row carrying the current result, the previous round's where one exists, and the group average marked on the bar.
Sub-components sit beneath the indicators they belong to, so you can see which part of a composite drives it.
Comparison groups¶
Every partner is compared with one of three groups:
| Group | Who is in it |
|---|---|
| DAC members | Bilateral providers in the OECD Development Assistance Committee |
| Multilateral partners | Multilateral organisations, including the development banks |
| United Nations entities | UN funds, programmes and agencies |
A partner reporting in fewer than five countries is shown without a group comparison. Its result rests on too small a sample to sit beside partners measured across dozens of countries — the score is still shown, and the reason is stated.
Measures that work differently¶
Transparency ratings. Reporting to the two global standards is rated Excellent, Good, Fair, Improvement needed or Not reporting, separately for each. These are assessments produced outside the Global Partnership, so they are shown as grades rather than percentages, carry their own reporting years, and are not folded into the dimension average.
Untied aid. Published for DAC members only, from the OECD's Creditor Reporting System, with its own reporting years. Partners outside the DAC have no figure — the profile says so rather than showing a gap.
Private-sector engagement. Reporting against the Kampala Principles is optional. Partners that did not take part show a note to that effect. The measures shown are the partner's own reported practice: whether it has a strategy, organises dialogue, conducts due-diligence risk assessments, and has grievance mechanisms in place.
Downloading the profile¶
Partners reporting widely enough have a monitoring profile available as a PDF — a designed document covering the same results in narrative form, for circulation offline.
Where a partner's reporting is too thin for a representative profile, the download is not offered, and the reason is given in its place.
Within a profile, a section whose result rests on fewer than two partner countries is not shown as a result: the Secretariat's note explaining the gap stands in its place. Where a result is carried largely by one or two countries — use of PFM systems and annual predictability are weighted by public-sector disbursements, so this happens — the Secretariat's sentence on the sample size follows the figure.
A result is called higher or lower than the group's where the two figures differ by two points or more as printed; a smaller gap is described as similar. The same band applies to a partner's own change since 2018 in the untied aid section, where a share within one point of its earlier value is reported as broadly stable.
The Kampala Principles section counts partner countries. Its base is the countries where the partner reported private sector engagement projects or programmes, and each share is taken over the countries that answered the question. A partner with such reporting in only one country is shown the Secretariat's note rather than averages.
The SDG 17.16.1 section, for bilateral partners, reads each of the seven elements as progress or decline by the direction of the partner's change since 2018, and reports overall progress where more elements rose than fell. An element is left out where either round's result rests on fewer than two partner countries.
For DAC members the profile closes with a box on how the partner delivers funding at country level: the split of its country programmable aid by channel of delivery, from the OECD Creditor Reporting System for 2024. This goes beyond what the monitoring round collects and is there to put the public-sector-based results in context. A channel with no data in the CRS extract is named beneath the chart rather than drawn as 0%. Other partners' profiles end with the SDG 17.16.1 section.
Common questions¶
Why does a row show a dash? Nothing was reported for that measure. It is not a zero, and it is excluded from averages rather than counted against the partner.
Why is my organisation compared against that group? Each partner sits in one comparison group, and the same assignment is used across the portal and the downloadable profiles. Multilateral development banks are compared with multilateral partners as a whole.
Why is there no group average on my profile? Because the partner reported in fewer than five partner countries. A comparison drawn from one or two countries would read as a judgement on practice when it reflects how little was reported.
Why do the transparency years differ from everything else? The two standards are assessed on their own cycle by the organisations that run them. The years are shown on the measures so the comparison is read against the right period.
Why is the private-sector section missing? Reporting against the Kampala Principles is optional, so not every partner has results to show. Where a section carries no result, the profile says so in place of the figures.