Development Partner Indicators¶

Every indicator development partners report on, grouped by dimension. Each has an overall score across the partner countries a partner reported in, and a score for each of those countries.

Scores run from 0 to 1 and are shown as percentages unless noted. The official definition of each indicator is at the foot of this page.

Dimension 1 — Whole-of-Society¶

Dimension 2 — State and Use of Country Systems¶

Dimension 3 — Transparency¶

Dimension 4 — Leaving No One Behind¶

Official definitions¶

The description and interpretation of each development partner indicator, as held in the Global Database maintained by the GPEDC Joint Support Team. This is the wording to cite; the shorter text shown beside a score in the portal is a summary of it.

Dimension 1 — Whole-of-Society¶

1.1.4 — Extent of engagement with a diversity of stakeholders in the preparation of development partners' country-level strategies

Development partners report on the participation of partner country stakeholders in the preparation of their country strategy or partnership framework [3]. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (six). The involvement of national government is also accounted and represents 50% of the score. A higher score indicates greater diversity in stakeholder engagement.

Dimension 2 — State and Use of Country Systems¶

2.2.1 — Extent to which development partners use country-owned results frameworks and planning tools for developing their country-level interventions

The score describes the development partner's average use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools in partner countries. This is a composite measurement constructed by averaging the scores of elements D2_2_1_O, D2_2_1_R and D2_2_1_D. It corresponds to the value of SDG indicator 17.15.1. This value is only available if all the three elements are available.

2.2.1.D — Share of results indicators monitored using data from government monitoring systems and statistics

Development partners report, for each of their six largest in-country programmes or projects, the number of results indicators that will be reported using data from government monitoring and national statistical systems. The measurement is obtained by dividing such number by the total number of results indicators defined in the project/programme. A higher score indicates greater use of data from the national statistical system.

2.2.1.O — Share of interventions with objectives drawn from country-owned results frameworks

Development partners report, for each of their six largest in-country programmes or projects, if the source of project objectives is drawn from country-owned results frameworks or planning tools. The measurement is obtained by dividing the number of projects/programmes with objectives drawn from country-owned results frameworks or planning tools by the total number of projects. A higher score indicates greater alignment between project objectives and objectives defined in government planning tools.

2.2.1.R — Share of results indicators drawn from country-owned results frameworks

Development partners report, for each of their six largest in-country programmes or projects, the number of results indicators defined in the project/programme and, out of them, the number of results indicators drawn from existing government results frameworks. The measurement is obtained by dividing the latter number by the total number of results indicators defined in the project/programme. A higher score indicates greater alignment between project results indicators and results indicators defined in country-owned results frameworks.

2.3.3 — Extent of use of PFM systems when channelling funding to the public sector

The score describes the development partner's average use of PFM systems of partner countries. It is calculated as average of the use of partner country PFM systems when channelling development co-operation funding to the public sector, across four elements (budget execution, financial reporting, auditing procedures, and procurement systems). This is a composite measurement constructed by averaging the scores of elements D2_3_3_e, D2_3_3_f, D2_3_3_a , and D2_3_3_p.

2.3.3.a — Share of development co-operation that used auditing procedures

It represents the share of funds for which the development partner relies on the audit opinions, issued by the countries' supreme audit institutions, in the governments' normal financial reporting and they do not place additional auditing requirements on governments.

2.3.3.e — Share of development co-operation that used budget execution procedures

It indicates the share of funds managed according to the national budgeting procedures established in the general legislation and implemented by the government in the partner countries. This means that programmes supported by the development partner are subject to normal country budgetary execution procedures, namely procedures for authorisation, approval and payment.

2.3.3.f — Share of development co-operation that used financial reporting procedures

It indicates the share of funds for which the development partner does not impose additional requirements on governments for financial reporting.

2.3.3.p — Share of development co-operation that used procurement systems

It represents the share of funds managed according to the national procurement procedures as they were established in the general legislation and implemented by the partner country government. For these funds, the development partner does not make additional, or special, requirements on governments for the procurement of works, goods and services.

2.4.1.1 — Annual predictability – proportion of funding disbursed within the same year for which it was scheduled to be disbursed

It describes the proportion of funds disbursed to governments within the fiscal year for which the disbursement was scheduled to be disbursed. A score of 1 indicates that actual disbursements are fully consistent with the scheduled disbursements. Lower values describe deviations (either over- or under- disbursements) between actual and scheduled disbursements. Such deviations can impact the governments' ability to implement their development efforts as planned as well as development partners’ implementation of projects on the ground. The closer to 0, the larger the deviations.

2.4.1.2 — Medium-term predictability – proportion of countries for which development partners have provided forward spending plans (1-3 prospective years average)

It describes the proportion of countries for which the development partner has provided forward spending plans (on average across three consecutive years). It is the average of the values obtained for each year. The closer to 1, the larger the share of countries for which the development partner has provided forward spending plans over a three-year period. This value is only available if all the three elements are available.

2.4.1.2.F1 — Proportion of countries for which development partners have provided forward spending plans (1 prospective year)

It describes the proportion of countries for which the development partner has provided forward spending plans for one year ahead. The closer to 1, the larger the share of countries for which the development partner has provided forward spending plans for one year ahead.

2.4.1.2.F2 — Proportion of countries for which development partners have provided forward spending plans (2 prospective years)

It describes the proportion of countries for which the development partner has provided forward spending plans for two years ahead. The closer to 1, the larger the share of countries for which the development partner has provided forward spending plans for two years ahead.

2.4.1.2.F3 — Proportion of countries for which development partners have provided forward spending plans (3 prospective years)

It describes the proportion of countries for which the development partner has provided forward spending plans for three years ahead. The closer to 1, the larger the share of countries for which the development partner has provided forward spending plans for three years ahead.

2.4.2 — Share of development co-operation recorded on national budget

The indicator describes the share of development co-operation flows scheduled by the development partner that are recorded on partner countries’ national budgets and are, thus, subject to parliamentary oversight as part of the budget approval. The closer to 1, the higher the proportion of funds recorded on national budgets. The score offers insight into how – together – they facilitate domestic oversight of development co-operation.

2.7.2 — Extent to which development partners report to the information management system

This measurement describes the extent to which the development partner reports as requested to countries' information management systems. It is defined on a scale from 0 to 1, where a higher value indicates greater compliance with both the required information and the reporting frequency. A score of 0 indicates that, while operational systems exist in the countries, the development partner does not report to them.

2.7.2.F — Proportion of countries where development partners report to the system at the requested frequency

It indicates the proportion of countries where the development partner reports to the information management system at the requested frequency, relative to the total number of countries where the development partner reports to the information management systems.

2.7.2.P — Proportion of countries where development partners provide the information requested

It indicates the proportion of countries where the development partner reports the requested information to the information management system, relative to the total number of countries where the development partner reports to the information management systems.

2.7.2.R — Proportion of countries where development partners report to the information management system

It indicates the proportion of countries where the development partner reports to the information management system, relative to the total number of countries they reported to in the GPEDC monitoring exercise that have an operational information management system.

2.8.1 — Share of untied Official Development Assistance (OECD Stats)

It indicates the share of total commitments reported by the development partner as untied, meaning they are not restricted by conditions requiring the recipient to purchase goods or services from the donor country. The data is sourced from OECD Statistics.

Dimension 3 — Transparency¶

3.2.1.CRS — The score describes development partners’ average use of PFM systems in a partner country. It is calculated as average of the use of country PFM systems when channelling development co-operation funding to the public sector, across four elements (budget execution, financial reporting, auditing procedures, and procurement systems). This is a composite measurement constructed by averaging the scores of elements D2_3_3_e, D2_3_3_f, D2_3_3_a , and D2_3_3_p.

This measurement relies on assessments produced by the secretariat of the OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS). Development partners are categorised on a four-tiered scale: “excellent”, “good”, “fair” and “needs improvement”.

3.2.1.IATI — Quality of development partners' reporting to global systems and standards - IATI

This measurement relies on assessments produced by the secretariat of the International Aid Transparency Initiative standard (IATI). Development partners are categorised on a four-tiered scale: “excellent”, “good”, “fair” and “needs improvement”.

3.2.2 — Proportion of countries where development partners makes publicly available their country-level strategy

This measurement represents the proportion of countries where the development partner makes their country-level strategy publicly available online, relative to the total number of countries they reported to in the GPEDC monitoring exercise where they have a strategy in place.

Dimension 4 — Leaving No One Behind¶

4.1.4 — Extent of development partners’ consultation with a diversity of population groups in the preparation of country-level strategies

This measurement reflects the degree of consultation as the average of elements D4_1_4_g_w/y/v. A score closer to 1 indicates more extensive engagement with a diversity of population groups, including vulnerable and marginalised groups, in the development partner's country-level strategies.

4.1.4.g.v — Proportion of countries where development partners consulted CSOs representing vulnerable and marginalised

This measurement indicates the proportion of countries where the development partner consulted with such CSOs, relative to the total number of countries they reported to in the GPEDC monitoring exercise where they have a strategy in place.

4.1.4.g.w — Proportion of countries where development partners consulted CSOs representing women and girls

This measurement indicates the proportion of countries where the development partner consulted with such CSOs, relative to the total number of countries they reported to in the GPEDC monitoring exercise where they have a strategy in place.

4.1.4.g.y — Proportion of countries where development partners consulted CSOs representing youth and children

This measurement indicates the proportion of countries where the development partner consulted with such CSOs, relative to the total number of countries they reported to in the GPEDC monitoring exercise where they have a strategy in place.

4.2.3 — Extent of inclusion of development priorities for a diversity of population groups in development partners’ country-level strategies

This measurement reflects the degree of inclusion as the average of elements D4_2_3_g_w/y/v. A score closer to 1 indicates more comprehensive definition of development priorities for different population groups, including vulnerable and marginalised groups.

4.2.3.g.v — Proportion of development partners' country-level strategies that include development priorities for vulnerable and marginalised

It indicates the proportion of the development partner's country-level strategies that include development priorities for vulnerable and marginalised groups, relative to the total number of countries they reported to in the GPEDC monitoring exercise where they have a strategy in place.

4.2.3.g.w — Proportion of development partners' country-level strategies that include development priorities for women and girls

It indicates the proportion of the development partner's country-level strategies that include development priorities for women and girls, relative to the total number of countries they reported to in the GPEDC monitoring exercise where they have a strategy in place.

4.2.3.g.y — Proportion of development partners' country-level strategies that include development priorities for youth and children

It indicates the proportion of the development partner's country-level strategies that include development priorities for youth and children, relative to the total number of countries they reported to in the GPEDC monitoring exercise where they have a strategy in place.

4.2.4 — Proportion of development partners’ projects/programmes that use distributional analysis to define targets and results indicators for beneficiaries

This measurement indicates the proportion of the development partner's projects or programmes for which distributional analysis or other data-driven methods have been used to define targets and results indicators for beneficiaries, relative to the total number of relevant projects or programmes. A higher value signifies that a greater share of projects relies on data-driven analysis.

4.3.3 — Proportion of development partners’ country-level strategies informed by data-based assessments

It indicates the proportion of the development partner's country-level strategies informed by data-based assessments, relative to the total number of countries they reported to in the GPEDC monitoring exercise where they have a country strategy. A value closer to 1 signifies a greater extent to which the development partner uses data-driven assessments to identify populations at risk of being left behind.

Other¶

CRS.category — Quality of reporting to the OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS)

This measurement relies on assessments produced by the secretariat of the OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS). Development partners are categorised on a four-tiered scale: “excellent”, “good”, “fair” and “needs improvement”.

IATI.category — Quality of reporting to the International Aid Transparency Initiative standard (IATI)

This measurement relies on assessments produced by the secretariat of the International Aid Transparency Initiative standard (IATI). Development partners are categorised on a four-tiered scale: “excellent”, “good”, “fair” and “needs improvement”.

K1.1.1.p — Development partners have policies or strategies that articulate how the private sector should be engaged in development co-operation

It describes the proportion of partner countries where the development partner has a PSEDC-related strategy in place.

K1.1.2.p — Comprehensiveness of development partners' policies/strategies

It indicates the average degree of comprehensiveness of the PSEDC-related policies or strategies. A higher value signifies that, on average across PCs, the development partner's guidances are more comprehensive in terms of including development priorities, rationale, and responsibilities.

K1.1.3.p — Inclusiveness of development partners' processes to develop policies/strategies

Development partners report on the participation of partner country stakeholders in the preparation of their PSEDC-related policy/strategy. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (six) [5]. The involvement of national government is also accounted and represents 50% of the score. A higher score indicates, on average across PCs, engagement with a more extensive diversity of stakeholders.

K2.1.p — Development partners have organised a dialogue on PSEDC

It represents the proportion of partner countries where the development partner has organised a dialogue on PSEDC.

K2.2.p — Inclusiveness of development partners' dialogues on PSE

Development partners report on stakeholder involvement in the dialogues on PSEDC. The number of stakeholders reported is divided by the maximum number of stakeholders that can be reported (seven) [7]. The involvement of national government is also accounted and represents 50% of the score. A higher score indicates, on average across PCs, engagement with a more extensive diversity of stakeholders.

K3.1.p — Extent to which PSEDC is adding value and delivering results where needed most – development partners’ perception (average)

It is a composite measure describing the perception of the development partner, on average across PCs, whether PSE brings added value and delivers development results where needed the most. The closer to the maximum value (1), the greater the extent to which PSEDC is perceived as adding value and delivering results where needed the most across partner countries.

K3.1.p.R.ij — Adding value by delivering results where needed the most

It indicates whether, on average across PCs, the development partner perceives PSEDC as delivering results geared towards sectors, regions and target groups that they consider priorities.

K3.1.p.V.ij — Adding value by contributing to development in the country

It indicates whether, on average across PCs, the development partner perceives PSEDC as adding value (score of 1) or not (score of 0) in terms of raising funds, building expertise, or reducing the perceived risk for the private sector.

K3.1.p.r.i3 — o To priority sectors

It indicates whether, on average across PCs, the development partner perceives PSEDC as delivering results (score of 1) or not (score of 0) geared towards sectors they consider a priority. [8]

K3.1.p.r.i4 — o To priority regions

It indicates whether, on average across PCs, the development partner perceives PSEDC as delivering results (score of 1) or not (score of 0) geared towards regions they consider a priority. [8]

K3.1.p.r.i5 — o To priority target groups

It indicates whether, on average across PCs, the development partner perceives PSEDC as delivering results (score of 1) or not (score of 0) geared towards target groups they consider a priority. [8]

K3.3.p — Development partners’ perception of alignment of PSEDC projects and programmes with relevant national and international standards (average)

It indicates the extent to which the development partner perceives PSEDC projects/programmes to be aligned with relevant national and international standards, such as environmental, social and governance standards (on average across PCs).

K3.4.p — Development partners conduct risk assessments as part of due diligence processes

It represents the proportion of partner countries where the development partner carries out assessments of potential environmental, social and governance risks of PSE projects/programmes supported by them as part of due diligence in the country.

K3.5.p — Development partners track and make publicly available the results of PSEDC projects/programmes (average)

It indicates whether the development partner collects, tracks and makes publicly available the results of PSEDC projects/programmes (on average across PCs).

K3.6.p — Development partners have PSE-related grievance processes or mechanisms in place

It represents the proportion of partner countries where the development partner has processes or mechanisms through which stakeholder groups can share grievances or file complaints on PSEDC.

component.id — Description

Interpretation