By Toby McIntosh
The transparency of international development aid may be negatively affected by a recent decision to defund the Aid Transparency Index.
The board that runs a huge database on international aid decided against continuing to support the symbiotic project that rates the quality of the information that populates the database.
A lack of resources was cited as one reason for the decision by the Governing Board of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) to stop underwriting the Aid Transparency Index (ATI).
ATI’s demise could slow down a steady improvement in the accuracy of the data, which comes from national governments and international aid organizations.
Using a detailed scoring system, ATI engages with 50 major providers of development aid and publishes biennial rankings of their transparency.
While budgetary concerns were cited by IATI, the reasons for the defunding decision appear more complex, according to documents reviewed by Eye on Global Transparency. The IATI board hinted at dissatisfaction with the index.
IATI is indeed facing fiscal difficulties. Despite rising budgets and falling income, IATI has not raised its fees for eight years. IATI is the middle of conducting both financial and strategic reviews.
An autopsy may be premature. The Aid Transparency Index has survived defunding once before.
An underlying factor affecting projects such as both ATI and IATI, is the difficulty of selling the value of “transparency.”
Readers: For notification of new EYE postings please sign up for free using Subscribe in the right column. (No deluge, usually several articles a month.) Follow EYE on Bluesky @tobymc.bsky.social, Twitter @tobyjmcintosh or LinkedIn.
Basics: IATI Runs the Database; PWYF Data Affects Inputs
It’s an unusual situation. The now defunded ranking system (ATI) was started and is run by a nongovernmental organization, Publish What You Fund (PWYF).
The scores and rankings it produces improve the quality of the data that gets fed into the IATI database.
IATI was started in 2008 and created a standard for reporting on aid that was approved in 2011. Paying members send in their data, which goes into a public database. There are over 1,700 organizations publishing data on nearly one million activities, amounting to $3.5 trillion in foreign development aid, according IATI. (See official IATI timeline.)
The database helps governments monitor development activities to their countries, facilitates donors in coordinating their activities and allows analysis of aid trends, among other benefits. An overview is provided in a 2024 IATI report, Powering Transparency: IATI’s Role in Enhancing Accountability and Driving Impact.
IATI is controlled and supported by its fee-contributing members. The budget for 2025 will be about $4.2 million. It is managed by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) with the financial side handled by the UN Office of Project Services (UNOPs). Running the 25 gigabit database is done by contractors based in the United Kingdom.
To spur more transparency about aid, the Aid Transparency Index was started in 2012 by PWYF, based in the UK. The biennial index rates the 50 largest aid agencies against a set of 35 indicators. These 50 donors are responsible for about 92 percent of the spending logged in the IATI database, about $237 billion in 2023. The ATI project costs $300,000.annually and amounts to about 40 percent of the PWYF budget.
The 2024 ATI report showed continued improvement in transparency, with the average score the highest recorded so far. “For the 2024 Index we saw an increase of 6.0 points in the overall average score between the first and second rounds of assessment – a significant improvement which translates to more timely, good quality and useable aid information,” PWYF reported. Organizations who rank high often tout their scores in press releases. But there is obvious room for improvement. Nineteen of the 50 organizations evaluated were rated “fair” to “very poor.”
Until 2022 the ATI was backed by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. In 2022, IATI agreed to fund ATI for two years, but said it was a one-time thing.
Despite pleas from PWYF in 2024 for continued funding, the IATI board kept its purse closed.
PWYF Foresees Negative Consequences
PWYF says the ATI has been a success in increasing transparency around development, thus contributing to the value of the IATI database.
“The index works because it shapes agency behavior,” Gary Forster, chief executive officer of Publish What You Fund, wrote in a March 4 op-ed in DEVEX. “It has encouraged reluctant agencies to start publishing data; motivated those already engaged to improve data quantity and quality; and provided a crucial, independent check on the state of global aid transparency.”
He stressed that “the index is not just a ranking” because it includes “a rigorous, two-stage process of constructive engagement” with donors “that actively drives improvements.”
After the decision not fund the ATI, PWYF summarized its case in a Nov. 18, 2024, letter to IATI from by Forster and Al Kags, chair of PWYF and founder of the Open Institute in Kenya.
“We believe this decision carries significant risks for IATI’s mission, its stakeholders, and its strategic objectives…,” they wrote, also saying, “The Index is widely recognised as a cornerstone of IATI’s success.”
Their core argument is that the ranking system “motivates publishers to strive to publish more and better quality data.” Further, they argued, the existence of the index helps government officials justify their membership contributions to IATI.
“Without the Index, member retention and engagement will suffer, data quality will deteriorate, and the usability of IATI data will erode,” the letter says. (Similar comments are made in PWYF’s March 4 announcement of IATI’s decision.
Ending the index will reduce transparency and ultimately damage IATI, according to George Ingram, a senior fellow in the Center for Sustainable Development at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. In July 2024, Ingram chaired a session at Brookings in conjunction with the release of the 2024 Aid Transparency Index.
The index “has been effective focusing donor attention on the importance of transparency,” he told EYE. “You get rid of the index and you get rid of the accountability.” Looking ahead, he worried, “It is not going to be used if the data is comprehensive enough.”
IATI Financial Issues Cited as Main Reason for Funding Cut-Off
Lack of resources was given as IATI’s primary reason for rejecting PWYF’s request, but the Governing Board also obliquely questioned the value of the index.
The no-funding decision was described in a Dec. 5 letter to PWYF in which the IATI Governing Board expressed its “gratitude” and said the index “has played a significant role in promoting global transparency.”
But the board said its 2022 decision to fund ATI for two years “was made under exceptional circumstances as a one-time measure.” The letter continues, “This decision aimed to bridge a temporary funding gap while PWYF sought alternative, sustainable funding sources.”
IATI also said it “faced challenges to provide direct support to PWYF due to the need to follow a full competitive process to acquire services.” The letter states further, “If IATI was to acquire any services to develop an index long term, it has to start a tendering process and come up with its own specifications for such an index, which may not be the same as the ATI.”
However, IATI did not try to pursue this path. A work-around was arranged for the two-year funding. PWYF’s Nov. 18 letter says “these challenges can be overcome.”
‘Respectfully Challenges’
IATI’s letter “respectfully challenges” the assertion that “many members view the index as integral to IATI’s value proposition.”
While the letter does not criticize the index, it says, “IATI’s value proposition is firmly anchored in advancing transparency and driving the broader effective development agenda.”
PWYF’s Nov. 18 letter replied, “We also understand that there are concerns about the Index’s methodology” and stressed the use of “regular, extensive methodology reviews which seek stakeholder input to ensure relevance, particularly to southern actors.”
IATI also wrote that integrating ATI into the IATI “requires alignment with IATI’s current Strategic Plan (2020–2025).” The current plan does not contemplate financial support for ATI, which was then underwritten by Hewlett. It notes, however, “The existence of tools such as Publish What You Fund’s Aid Transparency Index has had a beneficial effect among those organisations assessed, but work is still needed to fully understand what ‘good quality data’ means to different stakeholders, and put measures in place to raise the level of quality generally.”
The non-renewal decision came at a Nov. 20, 2024, meeting of the seven-member Governing Board, with apparently little discussion, judging by the minutes. IATI minutes are notably more complete than those of many international bodies. The November minutes detail about suggestions for budget reductions, but has just one paragraph on ATI.
A new strategic plan is still in the works.
IATI Financial Future Under Discussion
Because of concerns about its financial future, IATI has formed a “financial sustainability working group,” according to the minutes of the Jan. 16, 2025, Members Assembly. The virtual meeting brought together 63 participants from IATI member organizations. However, funding for the ATI index was not mentioned in the minutes.
The 2025 IATI budget is for $4,193,921, trimmed about 16 percent from the original submission, according to the IATI 2025 Work Plan and Budget Narrative.
The January minute indicate that the “total envelope,” all income for 2025, will be “just over $4.4 million.”
Virtually all of the income comes from graduated member fees, with the largest organizations paying $85,000 annually. The fee schedule was last raised in 2016.
A recent challenge is that the United States has said it will not contribute. (See contributions table for all members.)
Raising fees was among the options discussed by the Governing Board in November. UNOPS has recommended increasing membership contributions “significantly,” by 56.3 percent, according to the minutes.
The 2023 IATI financial report reported income of $6,688,736, with reduced income from membership contributions as the major factor. Income in 2022 was $7,263,794. The report, the most current, shows a 2023 budget of $5,729,643, with expenditures of $4,050,156 and a carry-over amount of $2,638,581.
The financial working group has yet to report its conclusions.
Strategic Planning Begun
IATI in 2024 began work on a new strategic plan, to be completed by the end of the year.
Signs suggest that supporting the PWYF index is not in its future.
The index is not mentioned in a planning document from early 2025 on the IATI website Cover Note: IATI 2030: Exploring Strategic Pathways in an Evolving Aid Landscape, a two-page Executive Summary, apparently of a longer scoping report not included on the website.
Nor does it come up in a Phase I Consultations Summary for IATI’s Strategic Plan 2026-2030, published in January. The underlying document is not on the website.
Also indicative is an implicit recommendation contained in an internal report by a consultant who envisions IATI in 2030 “looking back on a five-year journey to success” as a way “to suggest a direction of travel that may be the basis of a new IATI strategy (2025-30).”
He describes the future in bold terms, writing, “We are regarded as a trailblazer and a trusted partner.” The consultant’s report describes many implied IATI choices, including the use of artificial intelligence.”
Another pivotal decision,” the consultant states, “was embracing ‘good-enough’ data, allowing stakeholders to contribute even if their data did not meet the full IATI Standard.”
He elaborates, “By embracing the idea that data need not be perfect to spark meaningful conversations, IATI created a foundation for donors, governments, and other stakeholders to come together, share insights, and harmonize their activities.”
“Imperfect data could still catalyze accountability, inform decisions, and foster collaboration, while the aspiration of the IATI Standard inspired stakeholders to continually improve,” according to the report.
The consultant, Jonathan Glennie, is Director of the Global Cooperation Institute, a think tank in Colombia “investigating the changing nature of international cooperation as dominant paradigms and economic relationships evolve.” He did not respond to an EYE e-mail.
Transparency Funding: Macro Challenges
Glennie was a consultant to Hewlett before it ended 10 years of funding for the Aid Transparency Index,. He wrote a report in 2021 that was not specifically critical of PWYF, but addressed the rationales for aid transparency.
Glennie’s report for Hewlett stressed “a combination of two strands of work.” He wrote that “the data have to be available and civil society actors have to be engaged and empowered to know how to get them and use them.” Summarizing, he said, “For the Theory of Change to work, the right kinds of information need to get into the right hands.”
He and his fellow researchers reported that they “found it hard to find examples of use and impact” of aid transparency data. The report says, “Both PWYF and IATI emphasise that ‘an important part of the picture has been overlooked: the potential of aid transparency alongside engagement to build trust and empower local actors.’ ”
Applying this analysis to IATI, he said:
The IATI focus has narrowed the utility of transparency to the technical sharing of data, primarily data on aid allocation. The vision of transparency as a condition for increasing accountability has been lost. By itself, transparency does not deliver improved accountability and improved aid spending. Other factors are also needed, including broader governance reforms and strengthening the demand side.
Hewlett said it stopped for supporting the index for two reasons, broadly in line with Glennie’s report. In a statement provided to EYE, the foundation based in California first lauds ATI, then signals a pivot toward funding related national and local efforts. It states:
In 2021, the foundation recognized the importance of deepening our efforts at the national level, focusing on the direct beneficiaries of international aid – the communities we seek to serve. So, we enhanced our support for governments to adopt these global standards and for local groups to use their power to make governments accountable, and more responsive to their needs.
New PWYF Strategy Stresses Transparency, Use of Data
In the wake of IATI’s decision, PWYF on March 13 issued a new strategic plan based on “three core principles: making aid transparency bigger, better, and louder.”
“There has been growing scrutiny of aid institutions, often accompanied by claims about inefficiency and misuse of funds,” Forster and Kags wrote. “Transparency remains the best way to address these concerns, allowing policymakers, civil society, and the public to engage with real data, assess impact, and make informed decisions.”
“The aid transparency movement is at a critical juncture,” they said. “More than ever, we must ensure that data is not just published but used to drive better decision-making.”
