Funder Report Card

Comparisons

September 2024

Tools targeted at Global North funders

Tool/framework: Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development

​

Developed by: USAID, signed by bilateral DAC donors and Northern foundations, in 2022

Target audience: All DAC donors and foundations. Signed by: Australia; Belgium; Canada; Czechia; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Iceland; Ireland; Japan; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania; the Netherlands; Norway; Slovenia; the Spanish Cooperation for Development; Sweden; Switzerland; the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; and the United States Agency for International Development. Africa-Europe Foundation, Anglo American Foundation, Fundación Avina, AVSI, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, “la Caixa” Foundation, Fondazione Cariplo, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Chiesi Foundation, Fondazione Compagnia di San Paolo, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, Ford Foundation, GHR Foundation, Humanity United, Imaginable Futures, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, McKnight Foundation, Porticus, Prince Claus Fund, The Rockefeller Foundation, Segal Family Foundation, Skoll Foundation, Robert Bosch Stiftung, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Indicators:

1. Shift and share power to ensure local actors have ownership over and can meaningfully and equitably engage in development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding programs. Supporting locally led development requires rethinking our roles as donors; understanding and valuing local knowledge, capacity, and expertise; and integrating diverse local perspectives (including those of marginalized and underrepresented groups) into all aspects of the efforts we support. Decisions should be made in partnership with those who will be affected by them. We will work to prioritize and reinforce local leadership and ownership, and reposition ourselves and other international actors as supporters, allies, and catalysts of a more inclusive, locally led, co-created, and sustainable approach to development.
2. Work to channel high quality funding as directly as possible to local actors while ensuring mutual accountability for the effective use of funds, management of risks, and achievement of development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding results. This shift will require a longer-term development perspective, more flexible mechanisms, and support for organizational development and capacity strengthening. Implementing this approach will require creativity and innovation to address structural barriers to local actors’ access to funding and alignment with local partners’ goals and capacities. It will also require building trust, simplifying reporting requirements,and reexamining the role of intermediary organizations.
3. Publicly advocate for locally led development using our convening authority; our partnerships and networks; enhanced cooperation with national and subnational authorities, community leaders, and civil society; and our voice in international fora and multilateral institutions. This will require intentional and consistent engagement with local actors, including sharing our platforms with local partners rather than speaking for them.

Tool/framework: OECD DAC Enabling Locally Led Development

Developed by: OECD DAC in 2023/2024

Purpose: Framing DAC member approaches to enabling locally led development - In early January 2023, the DAC, therefore, agreed to carry out a peer learning exercise to share and learn from peer approaches to support locally led development [DCD/DAC(2023)5].

Target audience: OECD DAC donors

Indicators: Spectrum of agency: Omitted, Consulted, Co-Responsible, Primarily Responsible

Tools targeted at Global North INGOs

Tool/framework: Community-led Assessment Tool

Developed by: Global Giving and Global Fund for Community Foundations in 2020

Purpose: The Community‑Led Assessment Tool was designed to help GlobalGiving determine the degree to which organizations are community‑led. The Tool considers nine essential characteristics of community‑led work (considered universally applicable) and 17 important characteristics (applicable depending on context).

Target audience: Civil society organisations

Indicators: Essential characteristics - rated on a scale of never true, rarely true, sometimes true, often true, always true, not applicable

Your organization or initiative...

1. Cultivates community ownership

Community members feel that the organization’s work, and outcomes of that work, belong to them.

2. Garners community trust

Your community trusts and respects your organization and the work it is doing. Community members know the organization values their voices and opinions. 

3. Understands and respects community context

You have thorough understanding about existing knowledge, assets, expertise, traditions, and inequities in the community. Your work respects and builds on these existing resources.

4. Prioritizes community needs/aspirations

You prioritize the needs and objectives expressed by members of your community and regularly demonstrate the progress you’ve made towards meeting those needs and objectives.

5. Facilitates a change in community beliefs or outlook

Through their engagement, community members are exposed to different ideas, choices, resources, and experiences designed to shift mindsets and/or build capacity or confidence.

6. Fosters voluntary community engagement

Community members engage voluntarily. No one is forced, bribed, nor obligated to engage, own, or lead the effort.

7.  Is relationship-oriented

There is a focus on relationship building in your community. You work to build and strengthen relationships based on care, well-being, and solidarity.

8.     Models transparency�You provide your  community with regular and easy access to clear, relevant, and timely information about your work (e.g., the what, why, where, when & how).

9. Is flexible in its approach

You are engaged in an on-going learning process. You are reflexive and proactive in tailoring and adapting activities in order to meet diverse and evolving needs in your community.

Tool/framework: Pledge for Change

Developed by: Pledge for Change and Adeso, originally a RINGO prototype, 2021/2022

Purpose: By signing on to the Pledge for Change – as a signatory or supporter – the goal is to shift the power more directly to local organizations in the global south while building a stronger aid ecosystem based on the principles of solidarity, humility, self-determination, and equality. for Change

Target audience: Global North INGOs in development and humanitarian sectors.

​

Pledge 1: Equitable partnerships

• 1.1 Partner perceptions of partnership: % of local partners surveyed who consider their partnerships with Pledge for Change signatories to be equitable
• 1.2 Level of partnership: % of projects where the majority of funding is managed by one or more local partner(s)
• 1.3 Diversity of partnerships: % and # of local partners that are representative of affected communities, such as women’s rights organizations (WRO) or women-led organizations (WLO), or social movements, refugee-led organizations, women and LGBTQI -led, or organizations of people with disabilities
• 1.4 Level of funding for partnerships: % of global funding shared with local partners (disaggregated by types of partner)
• 1.5 Fair share of administrative costs: % of formal partnership agreements providing a fair share of ICR or administrative costs (at least the minimum allowed by the donor, and ideally an amount considered fair by the partner)
• 1.6 Support for organizational development: % of partnership or funding agreements that incorporate core and/or flexible funding
• 1.7 Decision-making: % of projects or initiatives where the design is partner-led or co-created

​

Pledge 2: Authentic storytelling

• 2.1 Partner perceptions of communications: % of local partners surveyed satisfied with INGO communication materials and feeling they are given rightful credit for their work
• 2.2 Ethical communication: Proportion of INGO written and visual communications which are considered ethical, inclusive, mention local partner contribution, and avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes based on agreed standards
• 2.3 Creating space for local voices: % of speaking opportunities, and media, social and fundraising communications that facilitate direct engagement of local partners from global South
• 2.4 Engaging talent for content production: Proportion of communications content developed, led or produced by local talent
• 2.5 Visibility and recognition to local partners: Evidence of cases of public communications on programs that showcase/acknowledge local partners’ work

Pledge 3: Influencing Wider Change

• 3.1 Partner perceptions of communications: % of local partners surveyed reporting positive shifts in NGO commitment to shift power to local actors
• 3.2 Collective advocacy for equitable, locally led and anti-racist approaches to aid and development: Measurable outcomes from collective advocacy for equitable, locally led and anti-racist approaches to aid and development and other interrelated government policies (eg. trade, foreign policy)
• 3.3 Influencing donors and philanthropic community: Evidence of cases where INGOs and partners have contributed to influencing policies/mechanisms/budgets/ etc. that enable equality in resource allocation to local partner organizations
• 3.4 Elevating local leadership: Evidence of local/national/regional actors leading advocacy initiatives, with INGO Pledge Signatories playing facilitating, convening or supporting roles
• 3.5 Pledge signatories’ accountability: # of Pledge for Change signatory INGOs participating in joint annual reporting, learning and accountability processes, with peers and with partners

​

Tool/framework: Becoming locally led as an anti-racist practice: a guide

Developed by: Bond prepared by The Social Investment Consultancy, October 2022

Purpose: The guide includes nine organisational elements already identified by INGOs as key to becoming locally led, such as partnerships, governance structure, business models and organisational culture with some additional elements and modifications. The guide consists of questions that organisations should ask themselves and statements to help identify where they are at each stage of the journey.

Target audience: INGOs

Indicators: Scoring criteria is 1. Just beginning, 2. Moving along, 3. Well on their way

• A. Values and culture Among many INGOs, there is still a lack of trust in locally led approaches, and a perception of “we know best” in HQ. INGOs need to move towards an organisational culture valuing locally led approaches, embedding an ethos of equity, inclusion and anti-racism.
• B. Purpose and strategy The purpose of INGOs has not been focused on shifting power to communities but ensuring their organisational survival and longevity. Rethinking the purpose of INGOs can ensure the strategies align with becoming a more equitable organisation that practices locally-led development.
• C. Governance structures & decision-making Decision-making powers of INGOs are concentrated in the HQ in higher income countries and the governance structures prioritise the views of those closest to HQ and those with monetary resources. Communities most impacted by the decisions made are excluded in decision-making and governance processes, which are inherently inequitable.
• D. Programmes and partnerships Programmes are designed and delivered based on the views of HQ and donors rather than local counterparts, and power imbalances in the partnerships leave local counterparts little agency to create meaningful, lasting change. Shifting power to communities in designing and delivering programmes ensures that change is relevant to local needs and is sustainable beyond ad hoc programmes.
• E. Funding and relationships with funders Sources and types of funding lead to short-term, restrictive, project-based activities that do not build local capacity. Funding and relationships with funders largely constrain what INGOs can or cannot do to adopt the locally led development agenda, but the right types of funding and trusting relationships with funders could transform this.
• F. HR & Operations Staff at HQ oversee most strategic functions while staff based in countries INGOs work in are often reduced to programmatic roles. Meanwhile, organisational policies are designed around the needs of HQ. Enabling more strategic functions to be based in countries INGOs work in, and changing policies and practices to be more culturally relevant, are steps to ensure a more effective locally led operations policy.
• G. Evaluation and understanding impact Our understanding of impact has traditionally been top-down, ridden with quantifiable, short-term metrics geared towards fundraising success. Moving towards a system of equitable evaluation ensures a more holistic understanding of impact, driven by the needs of communities
• H. Communications and marketing Historically, communications and marketing has been developed by HQ with little input from partner organisations and the communities that we work with. This guide hopes to help organisations move their communications and marketing so it is centred around the communities we work with.
• I. Policy, campaigning and advocacy INGOs’ policy, campaigning and advocacy priorities mainly reflect the priorities of donors or their own organisation’s strategies, and local counterparts are selectively consulted. Given the systems change implications of policy, campaigning and advocacy work, local counterparts’ perspectives must be at the forefront. (This is closely interlinked with G. Communications and marketing)

Tool/framework: Humentum Equitable, Resilient, Accountable (ERA) Index

Developed by: Humentum, latest Index April 2024

Purpose: A benchmarking tool designed to measure institutional progress on actions taken to shift power dynamics and increase institutional autonomy. The Index asks leaders to self-assess their commitments and actions towards achieving ERA operating models in the areas of institutional architecture, people and culture, funding and financial systems, and risk and compliance. T

Target audience: Northern INGOs. In 2023, 41 INGO leaders completed the survey.

Indicators: Four point self-assessment scale: 1. No Change, 2. Thinking and talking, 3. Implementing systemic change, 4. Fully implementing and sustaining.

​

Tool/framework: Locally Led Peacebuilding (LLPB) intermediary partner assessment tool

Developed by: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PeaceNexus Foundation, Robert Bosch Stiftung and Humanity United (ongoing, 2025)

Purpose: Once finalised, the tool is intended for use by funders (specifically in the first instance the small group of funders that commissioned it) and their intermediary peacebuilding organisation partners. Its aim is to assist these actors to work jointly and progressively forward in relation to leveraging their respective resources and capacities towards better enabling LLPB through their engagement with “local” organisations in conflict-affected regions.

Target audience: INGOs

Indicators:

A: Meta questions on organisational identity in the peacebuilding aid chain

• Type of INGO
• Direction of travel

B: Key principles and change areas

1. Expanding direct funding to local organisations
2. Strengthening the capacity and sustainability of local peacebuilding actors
3. Building equitable partnerships
4. Inclusive peacebuilding programme design and measurement
5. Effective and consistent feedback loops
6. System change

​

​

Tools targeted at all Global North actors

Tool/framework: NEAR Localization Performance Framework

Developed by: NEAR Network, 2019

Purpose: The purpose of this Localisation Performance Measurement System (LPMF) is to evidence progress towards achieving localisation commitments.

Target audience: While its focus is on local and national actors, it is anticipated that it will also be relevant to international NGOs, UN agencies and donors as well as research and academic institutions that are evaluating localisation.

Indicators: =>

1. Partnerships

Desired change More genuine and equitable partnerships, and less sub-contracting

Impact indicator Equitable and complementary partnerships between L/NA and INGOs/UN to facilitate the delivery of timely, and effective humanitarian response

KPIs (1.1) Quality in relationships, (1.2) Shift from project-based to strategic partnerships, (1.3) Engagement of partners throughout the project cycle

​

2. Funding

Desired change Improvements in the quantity and quality of funding for local and national actors (L/NA)

Impact indicator Increased number of L/NA describing financial independence that allows them to respond more efficiently to humanitarian response

KPIs (2.1) Quantity of funding, (2.2) Quality of funding, (2.3) Access to ‘direct’ funding (2.4) management of risk

​

3. Capacity

Desired change More effective support for strong and sustainable institutional capacities for L/NA, and less undermining of those capacities by INGOs/UN

Impact indicator L/NA are able to respond effectively and efficiently to humanitarian crises, and have targeted and relevant support from INGOs/UN

KPIs (3.1) Performance management, (3.2) Organisational development (3.3) Quality standards, (3.4) Recruitment and surge

​

4. Coordination and complementarity

Desired change Greater leadership, presence and influence of L/NA in humanitarian leadership and coordination mechanisms

Impact indicator Strong national humanitarian leadership and coordination mechanisms exist but where they do not, that L/NA participate in international coordination

mechanisms as equal partners and in keeping with humanitarian principles

KPIs (4.1) Humanitarian leadership, (4.2) Humanitarian coordination (4.3) Collaborative and complimentary response

​

5. Policy, influence and visibility

Desired change Increased presence of L/NA in international policy discussions and greater public recognition and visibility for their contribution to humanitarian response

Impact indicator L/NA shape humanitarian priorities and receive recognition for this in reporting

KPIs (5.1) Influence in policy, advocacy and standard-setting, (5.2) Visibility in reporting and communications

​

6. Participation

Desired change Fuller and more influential involvement of crisis-affected people in what relief is provided to them, and how

Impact indicator Affected people fully shape and participate in humanitarian response

KPIs (6.1) Participation of communities in humanitarian response, (6.2) Engagement of communities in humanitarian policy development and standard-setting.

Tool/framework: Pando Localization Learning System & Equity Report

Developed by: Root Change, 2020

Purpose: Aid system actors from donor country capitals to the everyday people meant to receive aid benefits agree on the importance of mutual and inclusive relationships as the crucial bedrock for positive outcomes and longterm sustainability and self-reliance. Yet, they lack the metrics and management tools and empirical methods necessary to map their system and measure internal dynamics. Without a sound and usable way to measure trust and relationships, it is difficult to identify and agree on actionable ways to improve local ownership and inclusive participation in development aid.

Target audience: Northern international development organisations

Indicators: The Pando LLS platform focuses on four local system strength and relationship measurements that are derived from social network analysis (SNA) and Constituent Voice micro-surveys:

• Leadership measures the degree to which local actors are able to: lead identification of challenges and opportunities, set priorities, define and assess success, and receive recognition as subject matter experts by outside donors and larger international institutions and organizations. It records the extent local actors feel empowered to make independent decisions about what they consider the best course of action.
• Mutuality assesses the quality of connections and relationships within the system. It evaluates the degree to which there is trust, commitment, respect, openness, voice, and responsiveness across a local development system (donors, project actors, partners, and (eventually) communities and everyday people).
• Connectivity assesses the diversity and density of relationships and collaboration between local actors. It examines the degree to which networks of local development actors have the motivation, opportunities, and incentives to work together to solve problems. It maps the extent local actors are connected to local resources, knowledge, and expertise. The connectivity dimension measures the degree to which aid programs foster increased collaboration and cohesion among local development actors.
• Financing: Over time, Pando LLS financing measures reveal the degree to which the dependence of local system actors on external (international) financial resources is decreasing and whether connections to local funding opportunities are improving. It assesses the extent to which local development actors have access to the required financial resources to succeed and increase their autonomy. Questions about local development actors’ confidence that the funding/resource environment is improving will be tracked and compared with research on locally available development financing. The extent to which a relationship with a particular organization has made an actor more resilient and less dependent on foreign aid may become a key leading indicator of progress.

Equity report: The Global Governance Accountability Equity Score is an indexed calculation, reported on a scale from 0-100%. It measures local organizations' ability to set priorities and make decisions, the number and quality of connections that organizations have in their issue area, levels of trust and openness in project activities, and access to and diversity of the funding landscape. Four measures make up the indexed Equity score: Local Leadership, Local Connectivity, Mutuality Among Project Actors, Funding Landscape.

Tool/framework: Participatory CLD Assessment Tool

Developed by: Movement for Community-led Development, in 2019/2020?

Purpose: The Participatory CLD Assessment tool can be used as a self, peer, or participatory review tool at various program junctures to determine how the programming aligns with CLD characteristics and undertake course corrections, as needed. The tool has 7 key dimensions, scored on a scale of 0 to 4 for each indicator:

Target audience: Funders, governments or NGOs

Tool/framework: The Racial Equity Index

Developed by: The Racial Equity Index, 2021

Purpose: We are developing an index and accompanying advocacy tools tailored to the global development sector. The index and tools will support greater accountability for racial equity within the global development sector in order to dismantle structural racism and create a more equitable system and culture - with justice and dignity at its core.

Target audience: International development organisations

• MISSION: This indicator refers to how an organization prioritizes racial equity within its mission and values.
• PROGRAMMING: This indicator refers to how an organization engages impacted populations in programming from strategy and design to implementation through monitoring and evaluation. 
• FUND ALLOCATIONS & GRANTMAKING PRINCIPLES: This indicator refers to how organizations - specifically funders (foundations, philanthropists, individual donors) determine how to allocate funding and if their funding criteria centres principles of racial equity from a grantmaking perspective. 
• SOURCES OF FUNDING: This applies to organizations receiving funding. Key ethical and equitable principles, criteria and mechanisms governing resource mobilisation are in place and enforced that respect transparency, doing no harm, confidentiality, being fair and socially responsible.
• EXTERNAL PARTNERSHIPS/ RELATIONSHIPS: An indicator to reflect on how organizations formulate partnerships and the criteria for choosing partnerships, whether or not the partners align with values of equity while also taking into account building relationships between partners that recognises the different power dynamics between geographies and size of organizations. 
• COMMUNICATIONS: An equitable process by which information is exchanged, especially between the organizations and the communities they work with, and how narratives and images are being developed, created, and presented.
• WORKPLACE CULTURE: The culture of an organization refers to the enabling environment that fosters inclusive and equitable spaces or catalyzes harm and the intentionality with which the organizational structure has been designed to incorporate values and commitments to equity from a development perspective to decolonization from a development/aid perspective. 
• LEADERSHIP: This indicator refers to the makeup of an organization’s leadership team - whether or not leadership at all levels (from management to senior leadership to the executive board) is representative and inclusive of the groups and communities that the organization works with.
• HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: This indicator refers to whether the organization has systems and processes that are focused on equitable hiring practices, strategies and measurable goals for strengthening diversity and inclusion in the workplace, and procedures in place to protect employees from workplace retaliation (i.e. safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures). 
• SALARY: This applies to salaried employees. This indicator is defined as a transparent system of payments and process for employee advancement from organizations to employees, both in-country and in head office, in exchange for their work, which includes an acknowledgment of the pay gap across gender, race, nationality, geography, etc and the willingness to work towards a more equitable salary structure.
• COMPENSATION: This indicator refers to an organization’s transparency and equity within its compensation structure and processes for consultants and contractors that prioritizes experience and expertise and takes into account the costs of basic benefits (such as healthcare - which the consultant or contractor will have to pay for through the compensation offered) and the type of contracts needed for the specific project or work being requested. 

Tool/framework: The Equity Index

Developed by: The Equity Index 2020

Purpose: The Equity Index is a UK social enterprise advocating for greater equity across the international development sector. We will measure and track the multiple dimensions of equity in the internal and external workings of UK development organisations to influence meaningful change in their policies, practices, and partnerships. This includes racial and gender equity, equity in knowledge production, in funding, in collaborations and more. We are an anti-racist and feminist organisation that supports the broader decolonising development and Shift the Power movements.

Target audience: UK-based development organisations

​

Tool/framework: Partos Power Awareness Tool

Developed by: Partos, developed 2021 with 2.0 version digitised in 2024

Purpose: The Partos Power Awareness Tool (PAT) is developed as a tool to help make power relations in partnerships more visible. The tool allows the different stakeholders to share and monitor their insights on their decision-making practice within their projects, programs and partnerships. This makes it easier for partners to reflect on their power relations and agree on changes where necessary.

Target audience: Partnerships between Northern and Southern actors

Indicators: Ladder of participation tool to assess decision-making across partners:

4. Partner decides 3. Partner co-decides 2. Partner is consulted before a decision is made 1. Partner is informed about decision-making, but has no say 0. Partner is not informed in the decision-making and excluded from the decision-making process

• Must be tailored to a specific partnership, but indicative areas of decision-making include partnership building, implementing programmes, monitoring, evaluation and learning, accountability, and follow-up.

Tool/framework: Decision Mapping Tool (DMAT)

Developed by: King’s College London, in 2023

Purpose: The DMAT provides a way for practitioners to explore decision-making power across the programme cycle of a given aid intervention. It is designed to enable a process of inclusive reflection amongst programme actors on the allocation of this decision-making power, and the extent to which this power is ‘localised’.

Target audience: Partnerships between Northern and Southern actors

Indicators: There are three decision spaces:

• The Local Decision Space, where local actors (including state, non-state, formal and informal organisations and community groups, and individual stakeholders) make decisions among themselves with no interaction with external partners;
• The Partnership Decision Space, where local actors, external actors and intermediaries (including INGOs) negotiate decisions between themselves; and
• The External Decision Space, where external actors (including donors, philanthropists, corporate foundations and other international organisations) make decisions among themselves, without involving local partners or intermediaries directly.

​

The areas of decision-making on aid interventions covered are:

• Goals
• Design
• Delivery
• Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL)
• Funding
• Exit strategy

Tool/framework: Power Footprint

Developed by: WeRobotics, 2021 and ongoing

Purpose: Similar to the well-established understanding of a carbon footprint, the Power Footprint is a concept that seeks to address the authority, control, and influence wielded by international development organizations, emphasizing the need to measure and reduce this aspect of their impact.

Target audience: Initially Global North INGOs, now broader, (e.g., funders, multi-laterals, bi-laterals, NGOs)

Indicators: 5 preliminary metrics for illustrative purposes:

1. Are our country offices (or equivalent) independent?
2. Are they locally-led?
3. Can they exit at any time?
4. Are we ceding market share?
5. Do we have a clear Endgame or exit strategy?