Corporate report

Annex: overview of departmental recommendations and responses

Published 14 May 2026

Department for Education (DfE)

DfE’s ODA primarily covers support for asylum seekers in the first 12 months after they make a claim for asylum in the UK. In 2024, this amounted to £91 million of ODA to support the provision of publicly funded education services for asylum seekers of compulsory school age.

Since 2022, DfE also funds education for arrivals from Afghanistan and Ukraine. DfE published 100% of its 2024 ODA spend to the IATI Standard, providing details on its funding towards the education of asylum seeker children of compulsory school age in England. Considering the unique nature of DfE’s ODA activity, which is made through local authorities, and the confidential nature of the educational spend, it published relevant data across the components where this was available and achieved a status of ‘progressed’ overall.

DfE made progress by providing basic information on its activities such as descriptive details, aid modality information (aid flow and finance types) and transaction level details. It also added policy documentation to its organisational file on DfE funding allocations and provided annual historical overviews of its ODA spend which it calculates and publishes in arrears. There were gaps in the financial data component as it is unable to publish any forward-looking budgets. In addition, DfE should start to collect and publish anonymised and aggregate results figures.

Recommendations in the 2025 review

1. Publish What You Fund recommends that HMG implement forward planning budgets for ODA spent in-country for better transparency and cross -government planning.

2. DfE should maintain regular publishing as it responds to changes to in-donor refugee ODA spending.

3. DfE can start to collect and publish anonymised and aggregate results figures.

Response

1. Reject. The DfE does not have an ODA budget, so we are unable to produce budgets for future years.

2. Accept. We will continue to publish our ODA estimates on a regular annual cycle as part of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s ‘Statistics on International Development’ reports.
3. Reject. No data exists that would reflect or measure the impact of our ODA spending and seeking to collect such information would put disproportionate burden on schools, so we are unable to address this recommendation.

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)

DESNZ was the third‑largest ODA spender in 2024, disbursing £408 million that year. It was formed in 2023 when the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) was split into 3. For this reason, DESNZ is compared to the former BEIS transparency assessment made in the 2022 Aid Transparency Index.

DESNZ focuses primarily on funding the UK’s International Climate Finance (ICF), the UK’s primary instrument to deliver climate finance commitments made as parties to the UNFCCC. Most of DESNZ’s ICF work is delivered through multilaterals such as the World Bank Group, the Green Climate Fund and the Climate Investment Funds.

DESNZ made progress overall in its transparency, with more data published across all components by the final round assessment. It published 68% of its 2024 ODA spending to IATI, with 32 current IATI activities.

DESNZ did particularly well in improving its results and impact information by adding results logframes and annual evaluation documents, which were published for 90% of its activities. It also made good progress in the procurement component by publishing details of its ODA recipients and their standardised references. However, it published no tender details.

Considering that it works primarily through pooled funds, it should disclose these funding bid details. For financial information, it published more activity‑level budget documents detailing line‑item breakdowns alongside transaction‑level information. It can make further improvements by publishing a breakdown of its total organisational ODA budget beyond annual figures. DESNZ maintained high levels of publication of basic information and organisational documents detailing its strategy and policy on allocation, although its allocation documentation only ran to the end of 2025.

Recommendations in the 2025 review

1. DESNZ should ensure it publishes its entire portfolio to the IATI Standard.

2. DESNZ should ensure that its end dates correspond to the activity status.

3. DESNZ should add tenders or bid data to its activities. Investment codes or calls for grant submissions are also accepted, considering the nature of DESNZ financing, which is heavily focused on multilateral funding.

4. DESNZ should provide a more detailed breakdown of its organisational budgets by country, programme or thematic areas.

5. DESNZ should publish more activity‑disaggregated project data where available.

Response

1. Accept: this work forms part of the ongoing implementation of the 2023 Machinery of Government changes, which resulted in the division of BEIS into 3 separate departments. DESNZ continues to deliver these changes, including undertaking new data uploads. DESNZ is also assessing the feasibility of introducing automated data uploads through a new ICF PPM online tool, which could further enhance the frequency and quality of DESNZ data publications.

2. Accept: as part of the above exercise, DESNZ is reviewing all data previously published under BEIS and now under DESNZ and updating it where necessary. This includes revising end dates where programme extensions or closures have been internally approved.

3. Reject: all DESNZ tenders and contracts are published on Contracts Finder in accordance with Cabinet Office requirements. Calls for grant submissions are issued at the implementer level and are available via delivery partner websites.

4. Reject: most programmes are multi‑country and delivered through multilateral partners, making it very challenging to provide country breakdowns. The DESNZ budget is approximately 90% International Climate Finance, with the remainder spent on international subscriptions. DESNZ does not assign specific budgets to thematic areas and does not publish forward‑looking spend data.

5. DESNZ would like to explore this further with Publish What You Fund to understand the specific data requested.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

DEFRA’s ODA portfolio was £186 million in 2024. It focuses on tackling biodiversity loss, climate change and poverty. Key programme areas include protecting and restoring terrestrial and marine ecosystems; addressing declines in species and wildlife; expanding knowledge on biodiversity, nature and climate, integrating nature in financial and economic decision-making; and supporting low carbon, nature‑positive food systems and addressing pollution and disease. It published 53 current activities that were assessed in the UKATR. DEFRA’s funding is delivered through multiple channels, including bilateral programmes such as the Biodiverse Landscape Fund; contributions to specific trust funds including the Global Fund for Coral Reefs, PROBLUE and Climate Promise; and demand‑led challenge funds such as the Darwin Fund and the Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund.

DEFRA made good progress with a status of ‘progressed’ overall, and 4 out of 5 components progressed. It published 95% of its 2024 ODA spend to IATI and made the greatest progress in the organisational documents component and the results and impact information. It published updated annual reports and organisational strategy and allocation documentation to IATI for the first time. It also started publishing across all results and impact component indicators, with new data added to over half of its activities for objectives, impact appraisals and evaluations. Results data were added to nearly 40% of activities.

DEFRA maintained good disclosure of its basic project information, although it needs to improve disclosure of its sub‑national locations. DEFRA made good progress in the financial data component, disclosing full organisational budgets and more transaction data, but still needs to start disclosing disaggregated organisational budgets and more project budgets. Lastly, it made minimal progress gains in the procurement component, with low levels of contracts and tenders data disclosed, but more information was disclosed on its ODA recipients.

Recommendations in the 2025 review

1. DEFRA should publish its results and impact data for 100% of its activities.
2. DEFRA should disclose more contracts and tender documentation.
3. DEFRA should disclose its sub‑national locations where the activity scope is relevant.
4. DEFRA should ensure it publishes standardised references for its aid recipients.
5. DEFRA should publish more disaggregated budget data about its organisational spending and its activities.

Response

Partially accept: where programmes are multi‑country, it can be challenging to provide sub‑national location activity; this is also true for disaggregating data for organisational spending and activities.

DEFRA remains firmly committed to transparency and welcomes this review as a timely and important contribution to our ongoing efforts to strengthen the integrity and openness of our ODA portfolio, where possible.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)

DSIT focuses on improving people’s lives by maximising the potential of science and technology. DSIT was formed in February 2023, taking over science and technology policy responsibilities from the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It manages the International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF) and managed the Newton Fund and the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), which have now closed. ISPF is designed to encourage research and innovation in the UK’s international relationships, supporting researchers and innovators to work with peers around the world on the major themes of planet, health, tech and talent, which significantly impact low‑ and middle‑income countries.

In 2024, DSIT spent £214 million of ODA and published 95% of its 2024 spend to the IATI standard, with over 500 activities. It maintained its transparency but can still make improvements. DSIT published good data in the financial data component, where it disclosed total project budgets and organisational budgets, but can improve disaggregated disclosure for both. It also maintained full disclosure of activity transaction data. For basic project information, it maintained high levels of disclosure whilst also improving the disclosure of its activity dates. However, it needs to work on improving sub‑national location information. DSIT progressed more slowly in the procurement and results and impact components. In procurement, it did improve disclosure on the recipients of its ODA spend but still needs to work on adding contracts and tenders information. For the results and impact component, it maintained high levels of information on the objectives of its ODA but failed to disclose any results data or evaluation documents. DSIT also needs to improve disclosure of its organisational documents, including allocation and procurement policies.

Recommendations in the 2025 review

1. DSIT should start to publish results data or evaluation documentation to its IATI activities.
2. DSIT should disaggregate its organisational and project budget information to provide greater detail about where it plans to spend its ODA budget.
3. DSIT should ensure organisational documentation about how it manages its ODA budget is available, including its policies around allocation and the auditing of spend.
4. DSIT can improve its location information with more consistent use of the location scope tag and disclosing the sub‑national locations where relevant.
5. DSIT should start to publish contracts and tenders for its aid spending.

Response

DSIT takes its ODA transparency commitments seriously, and we welcome PWYF’s aid transparency review. Increased transparency is an essential step towards improving the coordination, accountability and effectiveness of efforts to address urgent global challenges and support the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.
DSIT is pleased to have made demonstrable progress in 2 important areas, finance and basic information. However, we are determined to build on this progress and make further improvements against all areas of the transparency review.

1. Partially accept: DSIT publishes evaluations for its International Research and Development funds, including those related to Official Development Assistance (ODA). Access to these evaluations is available under the DSIT IATI organisation file. DSIT’s model of delivery for R&D means it does not carry out or publish evaluations and results collection at the activity level. Results and evaluations at the activity and programme level are carried out by partner organisations and, if published, are available on their own websites. DSIT will continue to publish any fund‑level evaluations and review any potential improvements to linking these with fund‑level activities.

2. Partially accept: following the completion of the ATR, DSIT has published a breakdown of its 2025 to 2026 ODA budget, outlining allocations to partner organisations. DSIT intends to maintain this level of disaggregated organisational budget reporting, where feasible, in future years. DSIT’s model of delivery and reporting means providing disaggregated project‑level budgets is out of scope.

3. Partially accept: details about how DSIT allocates funding among several key agencies and bodies working on the government’s R&D priorities are published. While ODA funding is part of this overall distribution, it is not specifically identified. Currently, DSIT does not plan to produce or release documents focused solely on the allocation and auditing of its ODA spend. DSIT is committed to increasing transparency by publishing further information on its ODA R&D vehicle, the International Science Partnerships Fund. The scope and content of this material will be developed and confirmed, with the aim of supporting greater clarity for partners and stakeholders.

4. Reject: the vast majority of DSIT‑funded ODA activities have a national, multinational, regional or multiregional focus. While DSIT acknowledges that there are some activities that might provide benefit at a sub‑national level, tracking these would currently create an excessive reporting burden for both partner organisations and DSIT, and would necessitate major updates to reporting systems. DSIT will continue to mention any sub‑national benefits in project descriptions when applicable.

5. Partially accept: DSIT provides technical capacity assistance through established UK R&D organisations: UK Research and Innovation; the 4 National Academies (the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society); and executive agencies (the British Council and the Met Office). Each of these is established to manage R&D funding and publish its own calls according to evidenced best practice. DSIT will review the best way to ensure these organisations publish appropriate information.

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

DWP’s total ODA spend in 2024 was £93 million across 2 main areas. First, ODA‑eligible benefits paid in the first 12 months after arrival in the UK to those on the following schemes: Homes for Ukraine, the Ukraine Family Scheme, the Ukraine Extension Scheme and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS), paid through local authorities. Second, the UK’s regular annual contribution to the budget of the International Labour Organization (ILO), 60% of which is ODA‑eligible.

DWP’s ODA budget is calculated and published retrospectively by gathering estimates of benefit costs spent through local authorities, which are based on previous‑year refugee figures. Therefore, it has limited forward‑looking information on its ODA spending. DWP publishes 5 activities covering its refugee benefits and resettlement support and ILO contributions. It has published good basic information on these activities since 2022 and has made good progress by publishing new data on spend transactions and improving the publication of its basic information by adding aid modality information. It also added new results information in the form of annual reviews to its IATI data. It was able to provide forward‑looking budgets for the ILO contributions but had gaps in its forward‑looking budgets for refugee spend.

Recommendations in the 2025 review

1. Publish What You Fund recommends that HMG implement forward planning budgets for ODA spent in‑country for better transparency and cross‑government planning.

2. DWP should maintain regular publishing as it responds to changes to in‑donor refugee ODA spending.

Response

1. In‑donor refugee costs (IDRC) are annually managed expenditure (AME) and are separate from budgets allocated by departmental expenditure limits (DEL) in spending reviews. AME, unlike DEL, is more difficult to explain or control as it is spent on programmes which are demand‑led, such as welfare, tax credits or public sector pensions, and IDRC. IDRC is therefore unpredictable or not easily controlled by departments and is relatively large in comparison to other government departments. It will, therefore, be very difficult to predict spending in forward planning budgets for IDRC.

2. DWP has no plans to publish on the IATI portal forecasts of future IDRC spend. This is in line with wider DWP policy around forecasting: we only publish DWP benefit forecasts twice a year following OBR scrutiny at fiscal events in the spring and autumn. We do not publish other internal forecasts and do not plan to make an exception for IDRC ODA forecasts.

Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)

DHSC’s ODA spend in 2024 was £433 million, making it the second‑largest non‑FCDO ODA‑spending department that year. Its 4 ODA‑funded programmes focus on Global Health Security, to address infectious disease threats, antimicrobial resistance and vaccines for diseases of epidemic potential; Global Health Research, to support high‑quality applied health research and training to address underfunded global health challenges; strengthening the Global Health Workforce in Africa; and supporting the implementation of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in low‑ and middle‑income countries.

DHSC maintained high levels of publishing when compared to the 2020 review, with excellent coverage across all components. It published 100% of its 2024 ODA spend to the IATI standard, with over 300 current activities. DHSC’s excellent levels of coverage of its IATI publication are also reflected in its IATI data frequency, which is now monthly, reflecting its effort to publish data more regularly. DHSC regularly published forward‑looking financial information with detailed organisational budgets and activity spending transactions. Two‑thirds of DHSC’s forward‑looking budgets were published, an increase from the baseline, so DHSC is moving in the right direction towards full coverage of project budgets. However, individual activity budget breakdowns were not available.

DHSC continued to publish high‑quality project details, such as titles and descriptions, maintaining transparency in this component. It also performed well on procurement, with high levels of contracts and tender documents published across its activities where available. It did particularly well in publishing the names and standardised references of its ODA recipients, sharing these standard references with other departments to improve joined‑up publishing across government. However, DHSC can improve its publication of results and impact information. It maintained good levels of objectives data, but fewer evaluation documents were found in comparison to the 2020 UK review. DHSC centrally manages several funds, so it should make links to these programme‑level evaluation documents more readily available in IATI.

Recommendations in the 2025 review

1. DHSC should consider its publication of detailed budget documents to share more details of activity budget lines.

2. DHSC can publish more results and evaluations either by linking these more regularly or releasing more project‑level information.

3. DHSC should continue to maintain its high levels of publication, considering its proportion of non‑FCDO ODA spending.

Response

DHSC accepts all 3 of these recommendations and proposes the following approach to implementing each of them:

1. DHSC will continue to adhere to our Exclusions Policy (Annex 4), carefully reviewing budget documents prior to publication to ensure we do not publicly release information that would prejudice commercial confidentiality. Following this systematic review process, we will publish details of activity budget lines where we are able.

2. DHSC will continue to publish Annual Reviews, Evaluations and Project Completion Reviews as they become available. We will aim to ensure these documents are published promptly.

3. DHSC will endeavour to continue to maintain our high levels of IATI publication in the coming years, ensuring we provide good‑quality, comprehensive information on our ODA spending.

Home Office (HO)

In 2024, the Home Office was the largest non‑FCDO spending department, with £2.3 billion of ODA spend. Its main activities were support for asylum seekers in the UK and the resettlement of vulnerable people, with the majority of this spent on asylum accommodation and cash support, as well as upstream work in recipient countries to build capacity and capability.

The Home Office was the only department with an overall progress assessment of ‘Decreased’. The visibility of its ODA spend was reduced when compared with the data available in the 2020 review, with less information available across all but one of the components assessed. The Home Office published basic data for 2 activities relevant to the assessment. These activities were for ending violence against women and girls, and for an asylum resettlement support programme, although both ended in 2021. Consequently, the Home Office had no up‑to‑date activity‑level financial data for its activities in 2024. It published an organisational strategy document; however, there were no forward‑looking budgets available. It also published less results and impact data, as the document link for the one evaluation available was irrelevant to the activity.

The Home Office made some progress in the procurement component by publishing new data on ODA recipients and linking to new contract and conditions details for one activity.

Recommendations in the 2025 review

1. The Home Office should start to publish regular, current activities and spending in the IATI Standard to ensure detailed and up‑to‑date project‑level information is available to the public.

2. The Home Office should ensure that project activity dates and statuses are accurate.

3. The Home Office should ensure that document links are relevant for the activity.

4. The Home Office should provide forward‑looking budgets for its activities and for its organisational budget.

Response

The Home Office is reviewing its aid transparency processes and will provide an update in due course.

Integrated Security Fund (ISF)

The UK Integrated Security Fund (ISF), launched in April 2024, was formed from a merger of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF), the National Cyber Programme and the Economic Deterrence Initiative. It is a cross‑government fund that tackles threats to UK national security. It spent £369 million of ODA in 2024, making it the fourth‑largest non‑FCDO ODA spender. It blends ODA and non‑ODA budgets, drawing together government departments, agencies and external experts to co‑design and co‑deliver programmes. The ISF supports the delivery of the government’s national security priorities linked to conflict and instability, state threats, transnational threats, and women, peace and security.

Overall, the ISF progressed its transparency, although from a low start point. It began publishing to IATI for the first time, with just 21% of its 2024 ODA spend reported to the standard. It added details of 26 activities, all of which ended in March 2025. Some programming is of a sensitive nature, delivering high‑risk activities in high‑threat environments. To mitigate the risk to programme staff, implementing partners and recipients, it does not publish details about all its work and only publishes annually in arrears. Due to the ISF’s blending of ODA and non‑ODA funds, and security considerations, it is slower to publish. Despite this, the ISF progressed in the basic information and financial data components, adding details on project titles, descriptions, dates, sectors, aid modalities and transactions. It can improve its transparency by adding forward‑looking information, where this is available. In previous years, project budgets were disclosed by the CSSF in its programme summary documentation.

The ISF also made some progress in the results and impact component by disclosing regional review documents and activity objectives. It can make further improvements by disclosing these documents more regularly and disaggregating results where possible. No progress was recorded for the ISF in the procurement or organisational documents components, since it disclosed no details about its aid recipients and did not release any contract or tender information to the public. At the point of review, the ISF had not yet released its 2024 to 2025 annual report and had no forward‑looking strategic or allocation documentation on how it manages its ODA budget.

Recommendations in the 2025 review

1. ISF should start to publish a larger proportion of its ODA spend to the IATI standard and should aim to publish more forward‑looking activity data.

2. ISF should disclose project summary documentation, like the CSSF disclosure in previous years, including details on activity budgets.

3. ISF should start to publish its total organisational budget, along with its policy allocation and strategic direction, to increase awareness about its work.

4. ISF should start to publish, where possible, greater disaggregation of results data.

5. ISF’s annual report was not available at the time of assessment, but the ISF was aiming to publish in autumn 2025. ISF should ensure its organisational reviews are published regularly.

Response

1. Accept with reservation: the ISF will continue to align with the Minimum Standards for Transparency and relevant legislation in publishing details of ODA spend. Most ISF ODA is blended with non‑ODA programmes, many of which are sensitive and likely to seek publication exclusions because of the national security and personal security threat landscape. Where relevant, the ISF applies FOIA exclusion clauses. From 1 April 2026, exclusion approvals must follow departmental governance. As the overall ISF ODA allocation declines and activity focuses on national security, the volume of published ODA data is expected to reduce, though year‑on‑year predictability remains uncertain.

2. Accept in principle: when permissible, ISF documentation, such as programme documents, will be published.

3. Accept: this is being done through Written Ministerial Statements and annual reports, and is further covered in parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS) sessions.

4. Accept.

5. Accept: the latest annual report for 2024 to 2025 was published on 30 October 2025. This report embodies an organisational review, as recommended.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)

MHCLG spent £98 million in 2024 on ODA‑eligible costs for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. A proportion of these funds were paid to local authorities and devolved governments as a tariff (a proportion of which is ODA‑eligible), along with ‘thank you payments’ for refugees for up to 12 months from arrival. This is paid to sponsors providing housing via relevant local authorities.

MHCLG reported 100% of ODA spend in the IATI standard on one activity: the ‘Homes for Ukraine’ scheme. As a new IATI publisher, it made excellent progress, reporting high‑quality basic information about the scheme’s work and policies, with documentation added to its IATI file about its allocation and procurement policies, as well as its annual reports. It published full results and impact data with annual reviews and aggregate or anonymised results of visas awarded.

MHCLG also published full transaction dates for the first time in IATI, but there were data gaps in the financial data component, as it was unable to publish forward‑looking budgets due to the retrospective nature of its ODA planning.

Recommendations in the 2025 review

1. MHCLG should maintain high levels of data publication as it responds to changes to in‑donor refugee ODA spending.

2. The UK government should implement forward planning budgets for ODA spent in‑country for better transparency and cross‑government planning.

3. MHCLG should ensure its document tags match the document codes, particularly for the organisational documents.

Response

Regarding recommendations 1 and 3, we are committed to maintaining our high standards of data publication and are pleased that the Aid Transparency Review has acknowledged the quality we have already achieved. We will also ensure that, for future uploads to the IATI portal, our document tags correspond with the appropriate document codes.

With regard to recommendation 2, we agree that forward planning budgets for in‑country ODA would enhance transparency and cross‑government coordination. However, this is challenging in practice for demand‑led programmes such as Homes for Ukraine. We commit to publishing regular data via the IATI portal on funding we have provided to local authorities (and we already publish quarterly data on GOV.UK), but it would be challenging to publish forward‑looking budgets for the reasons set out above.