The final results of the ATI are an absolute percentage score for each organisation and a rank in relation to other organisations. Because the ATI covers a large number of organisations, we wanted to provide a shorthand for comparing performance. As in previous years, we use performance categories to provide this shorthand. However, this year we have also renamed some of the five performance categories, which now range from ‘very poor’ to ‘very good’. The latter reflects the outstanding quality and quantity of transparent data being published by the leading organisations.

The changes in methodology in 2013 mean that absolute scores are lower. It is important to note that lower scores compared to previous years do not necessarily imply lower levels of transparency. It is therefore not appropriate to compare performance categories with previous years.

Very good

Four organisations are in the very good category in 2013: MCC, GAVI, UNDP and DFID. While DFID, with its strong institutional commitment to transparency and its early publication to IATI, has consistently been placed in the top category in previous years, MCC, GAVI and UNDP make it into the top category for the first time in 2013 due to their comprehensive publication in IATI format. DFID, MCC and UNDP in particular have invested in promoting access and use of their data by different user groups by launching high quality data portals or project databases. GAVI and MCC perform particularly well at the activity level scoring over 90% of the total possible points. MCC trails the rest for its organisation-level information, scoring 78% of the total possible points, which is well under the category average of 88%.

Good

Five organisations are in the good category in 2013. These organisations are World Bank IDA, the Global Fund, the African Development Bank, Canada and Sweden. Those that are in this performance category are all IATI publishers. In particular, the World Bank IDA has made significant efforts to improve the quality of its IATI publication over the past 12 months, scoring over 79% of the total possible points at the activity level. Canada also deserves special mention as it has improved its relative performance significantly compared to previous years. The AfDB published to IATI for the first time in June 2013.

Both the AfDB and World Bank IDA updated their schedules during the course of the Index data collection period to include ambitious IATI implementation plans in the run up to the 2015 Busan deadline for full implementation of the common standard. The Global Fund, Canada and Sweden have also published ambitious schedules. Given their plans, it is expected that these organisations will improve further still in the years ahead. The organisations in this category on average score less than 50% for the sub-group of indicators focusing on general financial information (organisation budget, disaggregated budget and audit) and activity performance (results, impact appraisals and conditions) so these are information fields they need to improve.

Fair

A total of 16 organisations are in the fair category, including some large, influential bilateral donors such as Germany, USAID and the Netherlands and all four EC departments included in the Index – DEVCO, ECHO, Enlargement and FPI. All 16 organisations are publishing at least some information in IATI XML format. This category also has the biggest number of improvers, including three EC departments – ECHO, Enlargement and FPI – and Germany BMZ-GIZ, UNICEF, USAID and U.S. Treasury, all of whom started publishing IATI data in 2013. Both humanitarian agencies included in the Index are also in this category. New Zealand, an original signatory to IATI, published new IATI compliant files in July 2013. Two organisations – Denmark and the Netherlands – were in the top 10 in the 2012 Index but have slipped in the ranking this year despite their continued efforts to improve their aid transparency. They have been overtaken by others that are currently publishing more comprehensively. On average, organisations in this category tend to publish more information in the planning (64%), basic activity (79%) and classification (73%) indicator sub-groups than in other categories. However, they perform particularly poorly on the three performance indicators (results, impact appraisals and conditions), with an average score of just 7%.

Poor

A total of 16 organisations are included in the poor category. The IMF, which is new to the Index in 2013, is the highest scorer among non-IATI publishers. Irish Aid, UK FCO and U.S. Defense are all IATI publishers but do not publish information comprehensively for all their activities. This is reflected in their low scores. Some large organisations are included in this category, such as the EIB, the IFC, Japan JICA and U.S. State. This is particularly disappointing given their scale and level of influence. Out of the 16 organisations, only the EBRD, IFC, IMF and Korea score for the sub-group of indicators looking at performance (results, impact appraisals and conditions). Austria does not score for any of the six indicators included in the classifications sub-group (collaboration, flow, aid and finance type, sectors, sub-national location and tied aid status). Irish Aid and Korea KOICA do not score on any indicators in the activity-financial sub-group (including overall costs and planned and actual expenditures) and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not publish any activity documents at all.

Very poor

Over a third of organisations (26 out of 67) included in the 2013 Index are placed in the very poor category. It includes a mix of organisations, ranging from some large and influential agencies, such as France’s AFD, MAE and MINEFI; Japan MOFA and the German Foreign Office, which is included for the first time in 2013; to 10 of the newer EU Member States, many of which have comparatively small development cooperation budgets and are still developing their systems. The two providers of south-south cooperation that are included in the Index – Brazil and China – are also in this category, with China scoring on just one indicator (quality of FOI legislation, for which it received 66 points out of a possible total of 100). None of the organisations in this category score on the indicators focusing on performance at the activity level (results, impact appraisals and conditions).