Publish What You FundPublish What You Fund

The Global Campaign for Aid and Development Transparency

NEWSLETTER

CONTACT

Home / Our Work / Localisation

Localisation

The movement to localise humanitarian and development assistance has gained momentum in recent years – with increased focus on shifting power and resources to local organisations and communities in the global south. Many donors and international non-governmental organisations have goals to increase their local spending. Since 2022, Publish What You Fund has been looking into the transparency of commitments to direct more funding to local organisations, how progress is measured and reported, and the underlying data that supports this. Our work provides insights into why transparency around approaches to measurement and monitoring of funding to local organisations is vital to hold donors accountable to promises they have made on fair resource distribution.

While our work has focused on tracking funding goals, we recognise that issues including power dynamics and decolonisation also impact progress on localisation. Our expertise lies in tracking funding flows, while other organisations are better placed to address these important wider issues. We hope our research contributes to the larger localisation conversation and offers knowledge that can be used as an advocacy tool to hold donors accountable for directing more funding to local organisations.

Metrics Matter Series

Launched in May 2025, Metrics Matter III: Counting local, analysed the local funding provided directly by five major donors which are important voices in the locally led development space: Australia (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade), Canada (Global Affairs Canada), Netherlands (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), UK (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office), and US (United States Agency for International Development). Our analysis applied a consistent, independent methodology across all five donors to assess the proportion of funding directly channelled to local organisations in a range of sample countries during US fiscal year 2024. We found that:

  • Across all five donors, only 5% of project-type funding went directly to local organisations – just $287 million of the $5.2 billion reviewed.
  • The Netherlands-MFA directed the highest share (6.9%), followed by UK-FCDO (6.3%), Australia-DFAT (6.2%), Canada-GAC (5.3%), and USAID (5.1%).
  • Donors routinely fund organisations based in their own countries at much higher levels than local partners.
  • Four of the five donors, with USAID as the exception, lacked clear local funding targets and used inconsistent measurement approaches in tracking processes, resulting in insufficient quality and granularity in aid data.

For a summary of the report, see our Executive Summary. You can also download the full dataset used for our analysis here.

The analysis builds on the approach developed in our Metrics Matter I and Metrics Matter II reports, which focused on USAID. In November 2021, USAID committed to directing 25% of its funding directly to local partners by 2025 as part of a broader vision to make aid more accessible and equitable. We set out to evaluate this goal through our Metrics Matter series, assessing both USAID’s progress and the effectiveness of its tracking methodology. We examined USAID funding in 10 sample countries and compared our own measurement approach with the approach adopted by USAID to determine the difference in funding amounts directed to local partners. Our analysis underscored the importance of how local funding is defined and measured.

Following the launch of our report, we convened a panel of expert voices from local groups, INGOs, think tanks, and funders to explore the current state of locally led development, and discuss if this is the time to rethink how we approach localisation. You can watch Localisation Re-imagined: Funding for local actors in a changing aid landscape and the panel discussion below.

Metrics Matter – Our approach

We examined publicly available disbursement data published to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) Standard across a sample of countries, classifying recipient organisations as “local” based on the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) definition.

To assess direct local funding, we calculated the proportion of aid received by local organisations (numerator) relative to total project-type funding that could reasonably be implemented by local actors (denominator).

Supporters

Our Metrics Matter series has previously been supported by:

  • Metrics Matter I and II: CARE, Catholic Relief Services, FHI 360, Global Communities, Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN), Oxfam America, and Save the Children US.
  • Metrics Matter I: NKO Strategies

Promises Versus Progress

Launched in February 2025, our Promises Versus Progress report explores 26 foundations who endorsed the Donor Statement on Locally Led Development and the transparency of their commitment to shift a greater share of resources to local organisations.

The report shows a troubling lack of transparency among these foundations with the vast majority having failed to report targets or progress. Key findings include:

  • Only one foundation (Conrad N. Hilton Foundation) has published post-commitment data on local funding levels—but without a clear methodology.
  • Just eight foundations report to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Creditor Reporting System, and only three publish to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) Standard.
  • Only eight maintain publicly accessible, up-to-date grant databases.
  • Just two (Conrad N. Hilton Foundation and David and Lucile Packard Foundation) have set a target for the proportion of funding they intend to channel directly to local organisations.

Commitments Without Accountability

Launched in December 2024, our Commitments Without Accountability: the challenge of tracking donor funding to local organisations report has built on our Metrics Matter series by exploring the macro-level approaches and commitments of five bilateral donors on their funding to local organisations.

 

Local Funding Matrix comparing 5 bilateral donors in their progress on tracking and monitoring funding to local organisations. Each donor is assessed against 8 questions: definition of localisation or locally led development; definition of local and national organisations; target or indicator on quantity of local funding; methodology to track local funding; clarity on denominator; publishes data on local funding flows; strategy on approach to localisation or locally led development; and has funding initiatives that prioritise/require local partners. USAID is the only donor to be marked with a tick for all 8 questions. Australia gets a tick for 3 questions - definition of localisation or locally led development, strategy on approach to localisation or locally led development, and has funding initiatives that prioritise/require local partners. Canada and the Netherlands are marked with only 1 tick for having funding initiatives that prioritise/require local partners. UK has no ticks.

 

We developed a Local Funding Matrix to compare donors’ readiness to track and implement localisation practices. We also assessed how many commitments to localisation have translated into practical changes in how agencies measure and report their funding to local organisations. In undertaking this work, we looked at five donors which are leading voices in the locally led development space: Australia (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade), Canada (Global Affairs Canada), Netherlands (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), UK (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office), and US (United States Agency for International Development). Key findings include:

  1. Donor commitments vs practice: While the donors reviewed have endorsed localisation commitments, there is a notable gap between these pledges and practical evidence of increased local funding.
  2. Tracking and transparency: Few donors have taken steps to define, measure and report on their funding to local organisations. USAID stands out as the only donor with a comprehensive target and public data measuring its progress toward local funding goals.
  3. Opportunities for improvement: The report underscores the potential for donors to enhance their tracking methodologies, policies, and transparency. By setting defined targets, improving data reporting, and learning from USAID’s structured approach, other donors can align more closely with their localisation promises on providing more funding to local organisations.