The final results are expressed as a percentage score for each organisation and a rank in relation to others. As in previous years, because the ATI covers a large number of organisations, five categories are used for comparing performance: Very Good (80–100%), Good (60–79%), Fair (40–59%), Poor (20–39%) and Very Poor (0–19%).[1] As with any range, it is worth noting that there may not be much difference in the overall performance between organisations at the top end of a performance category and those at the lower end of the previous category.

The table below shows the average score for each indicator group (commitment, publication at organisation level and publication at activity level) for organisations placed in the five performance categories. The biggest change since 2013 is seen at the organisation level, with the average percentage score increasing by eight points. As in 2013, the biggest difference between performance categories is at the activity level, where there is a significant variation in the average score.

Very good

There are seven organisations in the very good category in 2014. The AsDB, Sweden and World Bank IDA have made significant efforts in improving the range of information that they publish on their activities, catapulting them to the very good category for the first time. They join DFID, GAVI, MCC and UNDP, which were in this top category in 2013. DFID and UNDP have both improved their rank and scores since 2013, demonstrating their strong institutional commitments to transparency and continual efforts to improve the comprehensiveness of information on their aid activities.

Six of the seven organisations in this category have open data portals that promote access to and use of their data. DFID, MCC and UNDP perform particularly well on providing activity-level information, scoring over 85% of the total possible points. World Bank IDA leads on the provision of project documents, GAVI on activity financial information and MCC on performance information.

Good

Three EC departments (DG DEVCO, DG Enlargement and FPI), IADB and UNICEF join the AfDB, Canada and the Global Fund in the good category in 2014, bringing the total to eight. It is worth noting that Canada is the only bilateral organisation in this category. Most agencies in this category have significantly improved their overall scores since 2013 by increasing the comprehensive of the information published to the IATI Registry, with UNICEF being the biggest improver within this group. The EC departments lead on the commitment to aid transparency, although they are the only organisations in this category that do not publish performance information, such as results, conditions and impact appraisals, consistently enough to score on this indicator sub-group. The AfDB leads on organisation-level information, the Global Fund on the provision of project related documents, and the IADB on performance information.

Notably, none of the organisations in this category score over 65% for activity-level financial information. This is often due to the limited availability of forward-looking budgets. All organisations in this category have published ambitious schedules for implementing the Busan common standard, including IATI, meaning further improvements can be expected of them in future years.

Fair

There are 16 organisations in the fair category, including some of the biggest improvers in 2014, five of which were in the very poor category in 2013 (France MAEDI, the Gates Foundation, PEPFAR, Spain and Switzerland). Finland and Ireland have moved up from the poor category, with significant increases in their scores, demonstrating that progress is possible within a relatively short timeframe. The improvement in their scores is attributable to them publishing information on their current activities to the IATI Standard in 2014. The two humanitarian agencies are placed in this category – the EC’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO) and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – along with the Gates Foundation, the only private foundation included in the ATI.

Overall, organisations in this category perform well on activity classifications and basic information, but their scores for the provision of project documents and performance information is on a par with that of organisations in the poor category, with average scores of just 26% and 8% respectively on these indicator sub-groups. Several organisations in this category, including Australia, Denmark, ECHO, the Netherlands, New Zealand and UN OCHA have slipped in the ranking relative to 2013 as they have been overtaken by others that are publishing more comprehensive information on their current activities. However, both Denmark and the Netherlands have shown continued commitment to aid transparency by focusing on streamlining and improving the process by which they publish their information and promoting its use via open data platforms. 

Poor

There are 15 organisations in the poor category in 2014, with France AFD and Portugal moving up from the very poor category. Korea is the highest performer among non-IATI publishers, scoring above several other big bilateral donor agencies including France AFD, Germany AA and Japan MOFA. Although the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the U.S. Department of Defense have been publishing information on their aid activities to the IATI Standard since 2013, there have been no significant improvements in the quality of their publication. The U.S. Treasury’s IATI data does not include activity dates and therefore does not pass the current data test for the Index, resulting in the decline in its overall score and the drop from the fair category since 2013. JICA and the U.S. Department of State have both made some progress in 2014, including publishing information to the IATI Standard, moving further up in the ranking within this performance category.

Four international financial institutions (IFIs) are placed in this category – the EIB, EBRD, IFC and IMF, none of which are currently publishing to the IATI Standard. They all have project databases containing information on many of the indicators assessed in the Index, but they perform poorly on the performance sub-group of indicators, particularly on results and conditions. Of the 15 organisations, only France AFD, IMF, IFC, Korea and the U.S. Treasury score for performance information. The organisations in this category score best on organisation planning and basic activity information and seven of these – the Czech Republic, Estonia, IFC, Korea, Norway and Portugal – publish machine-readable information for at least a third of the indicators that take format into account.

Very poor

Nearly a third of the organisations included in the 2014 ATI (22 of 68) are placed in the very poor category. The list of organisations is similar to 2013 and includes major providers such as France MINEFI, Germany AA, Italy and Japan MOFA, the two south-south cooperation providers included in the Index – Brazil and China, and 11 of the newer EU Member States. Italy, Slovakia and Slovenia have improved in their overall score as a result of publishing more activity-level information on their websites. None of the organisations in this category score for performance information, including results, conditions and impact appraisals. Only half publish activity-level financial information. China scores on just one indicator (FOI legislation).

Overall, very limited information is available on the development cooperation activities of these organisations. Latvia is the only organisation in this performance category to publish information on its activities in a machine-readable format.

Average scores by indicator and performance categories