NATIONAL INDEX OF EXTERNAL AID EFFECTIVENESS OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
NIEAE — METHODOLOGY AND MONITORING STANDARD
Methodological Version 1.0 | 2026
Developer: Public Foundation “Nash Vek”
- Purpose of the Document
This methodology establishes a unified national standard for measuring the effectiveness of external aid to the Kyrgyz Republic. NIEAE applies to individual projects, programmes, donor portfolios, sectors, regions and the national assistance portfolio.
Key principle: an expert does not select the final score at their own discretion. The expert collects and verifies factual data, while the score is determined by a pre-approved formula, rubric and evidence rules.
- Logic of the Index
Document → fact → verification → formula → score → component → NIEAE
Each indicator must have a definition, unit of measurement, source, period, baseline, target, actual value, formula and verification rules. A number from 0–100 is not an expert opinion.
- Objectives
- create a reproducible standard for assessing external assistance;
- assess results, not only the volume of financing;
- compare projects, donors, sectors and regions;
- identify the gap between costs and results;
- assess the sustainability of results;
- measure transparency, accountability and citizen participation;
- produce an annual public analytical product of the Public Foundation “Nash Vek”.
- Objects of Assessment
| Level | Object | Purpose |
| Project | Individual project | Main monitoring level |
| Programme | Group of interconnected projects | Assessment of the overall theory of change |
| Donor | Portfolio of one donor | Comparison of portfolio quality |
| Sector | Set of projects in a sector | Sectoral analysis |
| Region | Set of projects within a territory | Spatial analysis |
| National portfolio | External assistance over a given period | NIEAE-N |
- Assessment Modes
| Code | Name | When to apply |
| NIEAE-P | Implementation | Active project; already measurable results are assessed |
| NIEAE-R | Results | Completed or sufficiently mature project |
| NIEAE-N | National | Aggregation of the external assistance portfolio |
An unfinished project must not receive scores for an end result that objectively could not yet have materialized.
- Formula
NIEAE = 0.25S + 0.20E + 0.15I + 0.15U + 0.10T + 0.10Ec + 0.05P
| Code | Component | Weight |
| S | Social Results | 25% |
| E | Economic Efficiency | 20% |
| I | Institutional Results | 15% |
| U | Sustainability of Results | 15% |
| T | Transparency and Accountability | 10% |
| Ec | Environmental Sustainability | 10% |
| P | Participation and Inclusion | 5% |
- Unified Calculation Rules
7.1. Type A — an increase in the indicator represents an improvement
Score = min(100; max(0; (Actual − Baseline) / (Target − Baseline) × 100))
7.2. Type B — a decrease in the indicator represents an improvement
Score = min(100; max(0; (Baseline − Actual) / (Baseline − Target) × 100))
7.3. Type C — share of plan completed
Score = min(100; (Actual / Plan) × 100)
7.4. Type D — verification checklist
Score = (Completed criteria / Applicable criteria) × 100
Checklists must contain verifiable “yes/no” conditions or predefined levels. An expert may not assign an arbitrary number between levels.
7.5. Type E — combined indicator
Indicator Score = Σ(Sub-indicator Score × internal weight)
- Baseline, Target, Actual and the “No Data ≠ Zero” Rule
- Baseline — the condition before the intervention or another officially approved reference period.
- Target — the approved objective of the project/programme.
- Actual — the value actually achieved during the assessment period.
- A missing baseline may not be replaced by an arbitrary number.
- When data are unavailable, status N/D (“not enough data”) is used instead of a zero score.
- A zero score means a demonstrated absence of a result, while N/D means that the result cannot be reliably measured.
- Quality of Evidence
| Level | Description | Coefficient |
| A — High | Independent or primary data confirmed by several sources | 1.00 |
| B — Good | Data are verifiable, with limited gaps | 0.90 |
| C — Limited | A substantial part of the data comes from implementer reporting or indirect sources | 0.75 |
| D — Weak | Evidence is insufficient or substantially contradictory | 0.50 |
Evidence quality is published separately from effectiveness. It shows how reliably the numerical result can be interpreted.
- Indicator System
The baseline version of NIEAE contains 32 indicators. Within each component, indicators are equally weighted by default. Additional sector-specific indicators may be added without removing the baseline indicators.
S — Social Results (25%)
| Code | Indicator | What it measures | Type |
| S1 | Coverage of Target Groups | Share of actual target beneficiaries reached | C |
| S2 | Access to Services | Change in service availability/coverage | A |
| S3 | Change in Well-being | Change in income, employment, living conditions or another social outcome | A |
| S4 | Inequality and Vulnerability | Distribution of results among vulnerable groups and territories | E |
| S5 | User Satisfaction | Share of users with a confirmed positive assessment of the result | A |
E — Economic Efficiency (20%)
| Code | Indicator | What it measures | Type |
| E1 | Budget Execution | Actual expenditure relative to the approved budget | C |
| E2 | Compliance with Deadlines | Actual duration relative to the approved duration | B |
| E3 | Cost per Unit of Result | Cost of the actual unit of result relative to the plan/benchmark | B |
| E4 | Costs and Results | Relationship between costs and achieved results | E |
| E5 | Economic Additionality | Economic effects and mobilisation of additional resources | E |
I — Institutional Results (15%)
| Code | Indicator | What it measures | Type |
| I1 | Institutional Capacity | Change in the responsible institution’s ability to perform its function | E |
| I2 | Regulatory and Procedural Changes | Adoption and practical application of new rules | D |
| I3 | Digitalisation and Process Quality | Improvement of processes, data and digital tools | E |
| I4 | Human Resources Sustainability | Retention of competencies and knowledge | E |
U — Sustainability of Results (15%)
| Code | Indicator | What it measures | Type |
| U1 | Retention of Results | Share of results maintained after completion/stage | A/E |
| U2 | Operational Financing | Availability of confirmed financing for continuation | D |
| U3 | Institutionalisation | Integration of the result into permanent systems | D |
| U4 | Resilience to Risks | Availability and effectiveness of measures addressing key risks | D/E |
T — Transparency and Accountability (10%)
| Code | Indicator | What it measures | Type |
| T1 | Public Availability of Financial Information | Openness of budgets, expenditures and changes | D |
| T2 | Procurement Transparency | Openness of procedures, contracts and amendments | D |
| T3 | Results Reporting | Timeliness and completeness of reporting | D |
| T4 | Complaints and Response | Availability of a complaints mechanism and demonstrable response | D |
Ec — Environmental Sustainability (10%)
| Code | Indicator | What it measures | Type |
| Ec1 | Environmental Risks and Requirements | Existence and quality of environmental assessment and risk management | D |
| Ec2 | Impact Reduction | Actual prevention/minimisation of impacts | E |
| Ec3 | Climate Resilience | Consideration of climate risks | E |
| Ec4 | Resource Efficiency | Energy efficiency, resource use and waste management, where applicable | E |
P — Participation and Inclusion (5%)
| Code | Indicator | What it measures | Type |
| P1 | Public Consultations | Timeliness, coverage and substance of consultations | D |
| P2 | Civil Society Participation | Actual involvement of NGOs and independent experts | D |
| P3 | Consideration of Affected Groups’ Views | Evidence that feedback was taken into account | D |
| P4 | Accessibility of Information | Clarity, timeliness and accessibility of information | D |
- Indicator Passport
| Field | Required Content |
| Code and name | Unique code and wording |
| Definition | What exactly is measured |
| Unit | %, people, som, days, km, etc. |
| Type | A/B/C/D/E |
| Baseline | Value, date, source |
| Target | Target, date, source |
| Actual | Actual value, date, source |
| Formula | Exact formula/checklist |
| Verification | Who and how confirmed |
| Score | Automatically calculated score |
| Quality | A/B/C/D |
| Comment | Limitations and special conditions |
- Source Hierarchy
| Priority | Source | Examples |
| 1 | Independent/primary data | Audit, official statistics, independent surveys, measurements |
| 2 | Official project data | Contracts, registers, reports, completion reports |
| 3 | Implementer data | Progress reports, internal monitoring |
| 4 | Independent secondary sources | Academic research, NGOs, media with verifiable data |
| 5 | Unverified statements | Cannot be the sole basis for a score |
- Step-by-Step Monitoring Process
- Define the object, period and assessment mode.
- Register the project and collect the basic document package.
- For each indicator, determine the baseline, target, actual value or applicable checklist.
- Record sources and dates.
- Check completeness and consistency.
- Calculate each indicator score using the approved formula.
- Calculate components S, E, I, U, T, Ec and P.
- Conduct independent verification of a sample and disputed values.
- Determine the quality and completeness of evidence.
- Automatically calculate the final NIEAE.
- Prepare analytical findings and recommendations.
- Publish the result together with the methodology, sources and limitations.
- When new evidence appears, recalculate the indicator while retaining the history of changes.
- Separation of Roles
| Role | Function | Not permitted |
| Monitor | Data collection and primary verification | Arbitrarily change the final score |
| Verifier | Verification of sources and calculations | Replace data without recording the basis |
| Methodologist | Control consistent application of rules | Change rules for an individual project |
| Analyst | Interpretation of results | Change a numerical result without recalculation |
| Assessment Lead | Approval of publication | Approve unverified facts |
- Resolution of Discrepancies
- All materially different values are recorded.
- Priority is given to the more reliable and verifiable source according to the established hierarchy.
- Where reliability is equal, a range/explanation is published, and the final choice is made according to a pre-approved rule.
- Any change to a published value receives a date, justification and a new source reference.
- Component Calculation
C = Σ(Scoreᵢ × wᵢ)
The sum of the internal indicator weights within a component equals 100%. By default, all indicators are equally weighted. Changes to internal weights are possible only through a separate methodological decision published before application to a new sample.
- Data Coverage Rule
For full publication of a component, usable data are recommended for at least 75% of applicable indicators. If coverage is below 75%, the component is published with the label “limited measurability.” Missing data are not converted into zero.
- National Index
For NIEAE-N, it is recommended to publish two values simultaneously: an equally weighted index and a financially weighted index. The first shows the typical project result; the second shows portfolio effectiveness taking financial scale into account.
| Indicator | Method |
| NIEAE-N equally weighted | Average of project NIEAE scores |
| NIEAE-N financially weighted | Weighted by financing volume |
- Interpretation
| Score | Category | Meaning |
| 90–100 | Very High | Results fully/significantly exceed targets; evidence and sustainability are strong |
| 75–89 | High | Main results achieved; limitations are limited |
| 60–74 | Adequate | Main results achieved, but significant gaps remain |
| 40–59 | Low | Results partially achieved; significant problems |
| 0–39 | Critically Low | Results not achieved or the evidence base shows serious problems |
- Project Profile
| Indicator | Result |
| S — Social Results | __/100 |
| E — Economic Efficiency | __/100 |
| I — Institutional Results | __/100 |
| U — Sustainability | __/100 |
| T — Transparency and Accountability | __/100 |
| Ec — Environmental Sustainability | __/100 |
| P — Participation and Inclusion | __/100 |
| NIEAE | __/100 |
| Evidence Quality | A/B/C/D |
| Data Completeness | __% |
- Red Flags
- confirmed material violations of environmental or social requirements;
- materially non-transparent financial data;
- systemic procurement problems;
- unresolved material complaints;
- absence of mandatory reporting;
- a significant gap between the reported and verified result.
A red flag is published separately from the final score so that a high average result does not conceal a material problem.
- Calculation Example
A project must increase access to a service from 45% to 70%. The actual value is 65%.
(65 − 45) / (70 − 45) × 100 = 80
The indicator receives 80 points. The expert does not choose 80; the number results from the data and the pre-established formula.
- Inter-Rater Reproducibility
Before the official launch, two independent assessors must assess the same sample of projects using the same version of the methodology. Differences are analysed by cause: data, source or application of the rule. The methodology is changed only systematically, not in order to achieve a desired result.
- Piloting
- Pilot sample: 15–30 projects from different donors, sectors, sizes and stages.
- At least two independent assessors.
- Record all disputed cases.
- Test formulas and rubrics before official approval.
- After approval, changes are issued as a new version of the methodology.
- Project Card
| Field | Content |
| Project | Official name |
| Donor | Funding organisation |
| Implementer | Responsible authority |
| Sector/region | Classification |
| Financing | Amount and currency |
| Period/stage | Start, end, stage |
| S/E/I/U/T/Ec/P | Component scores |
| NIEAE | Final score |
| Evidence quality | A/B/C/D |
| Data completeness | % |
| Strengths | Actual results |
| Problems | Confirmed problems |
| Recommendations | Corrective measures |
| Version/date | Methodology version and assessment date |
- Minimum Audit Trail
Indicator → value → unit → source → date → verification → formula → score
| Field | Example |
| Code | S1 |
| Actual | 82,000 |
| Plan | 100,000 |
| Source | Report/register, date |
| Formula | 82,000 / 100,000 × 100 |
| Score | 82 |
| Verification | Name/code and date |
- Methodology Governance
- The methodology has a version number and effective date.
- All changes are documented in a change log.
- A new formula is not applied covertly to previously published data.
- Where a retrospective recalculation is performed, both the original and recalculated values are published.
- It is recommended to establish an independent methodological group involving civil society, academia and relevant specialists.
- Public Disclosure
- Not only the final score but also the component profile is published.
- Indicators, sources, evidence quality and completeness are published.
- Limitations and disputed cases are published.
- The methodology version and calculation date are published.
- The history of revisions is retained.
Appendix 1. Monitoring Sheet
| Code | Indicator | Baseline | Target | Actual | Source | Score | Comment |
| S1 | Coverage of Target Groups | ||||||
| S2 | Access to Services | ||||||
| S3 | Change in Well-being | ||||||
| S4 | Inequality and Vulnerability | ||||||
| S5 | User Satisfaction | ||||||
| E1 | Budget Execution | ||||||
| E2 | Compliance with Deadlines | ||||||
| E3 | Cost per Unit of Result | ||||||
| E4 | Costs and Results | ||||||
| E5 | Economic Additionality | ||||||
| I1 | Institutional Capacity | ||||||
| I2 | Regulatory and Procedural Changes | ||||||
| I3 | Digitalisation and Process Quality | ||||||
| I4 | Human Resources Sustainability | ||||||
| U1 | Retention of Results | ||||||
| U2 | Operational Financing | ||||||
| U3 | Institutionalisation | ||||||
| U4 | Resilience to Risks | ||||||
| T1 | Public Availability of Financial Information | ||||||
| T2 | Procurement Transparency | ||||||
| T3 | Results Reporting | ||||||
| T4 | Complaints and Response | ||||||
| Ec1 | Environmental Risks and Requirements | ||||||
| Ec2 | Impact Reduction | ||||||
| Ec3 | Climate Resilience | ||||||
| Ec4 | Resource Efficiency | ||||||
| P1 | Public Consultations | ||||||
| P2 | Civil Society Participation | ||||||
| P3 | Consideration of Affected Groups’ Views | ||||||
| P4 | Accessibility of Information |
Appendix 2. Source Verification Form
| Field | Entry |
| Indicator | ____________________________ |
| Source | ____________________________ |
| Document/link | ____________________________ |
| Publication date | ____________________________ |
| Access date | ____________________________ |
| Actual value | ____________________________ |
| Verification method | ____________________________ |
| Verifier | ____________________________ |
| Status | Verified / Partially verified / Unverified |
| Quality | A / B / C / D |
Appendix 3. Data Statuses
| Status | Meaning |
| Verified | Checked and confirmed |
| Partially verified | Partially checked |
| Unverified | Not independently confirmed |
| N/A | Not applicable |
| N/D | Not enough data |
Appendix 4. Structure of the Annual Report
- Executive Summary.
- Methodology and version changes.
- National NIEAE.
- NIEAE by donors.
- NIEAE by sectors.
- NIEAE by regions.
- Transparency and accountability.
- Citizen participation.
- Most effective and problematic projects.
- Red flags and systemic problems.
- Recommendations.
- Full dataset of indicators and sources.
- Final Provision
NIEAE is intended to move from assessing external assistance by the volume of financing attracted to assessing actual results, their cost, sustainability, transparency and public accountability. The main quality criterion of NIEAE is reproducibility: an independent specialist with access to the current methodology and published sources must be able to repeat the calculation and obtain the same result.
Before the first official national calculation, the methodology must be piloted on a sample of projects from 2023–2025. Until the pilot is completed, results should be labelled as pilot results. After approval of Version 1.0, changes may be introduced only through a new version of the methodology.