Indicator Scoring Methodology - consultation space

Consultations
#1

Global Partnership Transparency Indicator Proposal

This table is a consultative version of the IATI Secretariat’s proposal to the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation for its revised Transparency Indicator. The indicator assesses all IATI publishers by scoring three dimensions – Timeliness, Forward-looking and Comprehensiveness – and then adjusting this score by the proportion (by value) of a publisher’s activities covered in their IATI data. The methodology is explained below the table and in the related Publisher Statistics pages. Please note that all Coverage values are currently set to 100% as the logic for these calculations is still being finalised. In summary:

{Score} = ( {Timeliness} + {Forward looking} + {Comprehensive} ) / 3

{Coverage-adjusted Score} = {Score} * {Coverage} / 100

#2

Some organisations legitimately cannot publish forward looking data and they shouldn’t be penalised for this. However, not scoring (or scoring them 100%) on this dimension over compensates them given that most publishers have difficulty achieving high scores on this. Any ideas?

#3

Is there absolutely no forward-looking data these organizations can provide? Not even planned disbursements, once an agreement is signed?

If there really isn’t anything, then presumably their score should be based only on timeliness and comprehensiveness.

#4

Bill,

I am glad you raised this issue as the U.S. as a published cannot ever provide forward looking data. The U.S. Government budgets one year at a time based on our processes, and we should not be penalized for this process. If this index is going to be successful, it needs to take into account different business models and operating processes. The score should be on what is available for that specific donor. So for the U.S. it is one year and we provide that one year.