Intermediary Partner Selection for Locally Led Action: A Decision Framework

Intermediary selection decision framework
About the decision framework: This framework outlines a sequenced and iterative decision making process for donors to use to embed locally led action as a guiding priority in their selection of an intermediary partner.

How to use this framework: Start with the groundwork steps, then work through each partner decision tier in order — government first, then local actors, then international. The right set of partners is usually a portfolio that draws on multiple tiers, but the goal is to assess local options first, with justification for internationally led approaches. Sequence matters: each tier should be actively explored and prioritized before moving on. This framework is designed to be used early in the planning phase of a programmatic strategy or humanitarian response when decision points about directing funding remain open.

Caveats: This framework does not include every factor a donor needs to consider in its selection of partners. For example, the evaluation of prospective partners' technical or sectoral expertise and geographic presence is assumed to be a key filtering step for any partner type so it is not made explicit here. Nor does this framework cover every step required for partner selection, many of which are codified in individual donors' policy. Instead it offers guidance for sequencing and the intentional weighing of certain elements that can help orient decision making to elevate the imperative of supporting more locally led development, peacebuilding, and humanitarian response.

Locally led action is not purely a property of partner type; it is fundamentally a property of practice, at every level, to elevate local decision making power and ensure responsiveness to communities. The recommendations in this framework are structural, but non-structural elements — like assumptions about where expertise sits, what kind of knowledge is important, whose risk tolerance matters, and what good delivery looks like — also require active engagement.

Before you begin Groundwork
Complete these steps before engaging with the decision tiers. They inform every subsequent choice.
1
Articulate type of assistance
Goals, modality, timeline
›
Key questions
  • What are the identified goals of the project or funding? (Ensure local actors shape goals from the outset)
  • What can the donor affect now with existing aid mechanisms, what approaches would require adjustments to standard practice, what are outside of donor policy?
  • What factors of locally led action does the donor want to achieve? e.g., local funding, reduced layers, local decision making, local system strengthening
Is this a development, peacebuilding or humanitarian program?
Development or peacebuilding Proceed to step 2 — Map the local system
Humanitarian
Is this an acute emergency?
Yes Conduct step 2 alongside an initial response. Proceed through Tiers 1–3 with an additional question at each tier: Can this partner receive resources immediately?
No This is a protracted crisis or disaster preparedness context. Proceed to step 2 — Map the local system
2
Map the local system
Actors, relationships, incentives, enabling environment
›
Note This is a critical foundational step that is worth getting right and may be done as a separate project or deliverable. If necessary, it can take place alongside initial rapid response efforts to inform subsequent efforts, but it should not be overlooked.
Analytical questions
  • Who are the key actors? Who has legitimacy with whom?
  • What are their relationships, constituencies, and incentives?
  • What are the laws, rules, policies, and norms that govern and shape system behavior?
Resources include:
Tier 1 — start here
Tier 1 Direct government funding
Assess whether any objectives can or should be delivered through government at national or subnational levels. Where they can, options to fund government directly should be explored and prioritised for those components — even if this doesn't cover everything — to minimize creating parallel systems and/or undermining government capacity.
3
Determine if government engagement is possible
›
Do the objectives relate to public service delivery, management of public goods, the creation of policies or standards, or national/sub-national-level coordination?
No Move to Tier 2 — local actors
Yes
Can the donor work with and through governments? Consider: donor policy, legal requirements.
No Move to Tier 2 — local actors
Note Where objectives do relate to public service delivery, management of public goods, the creation of policies or standards, or national/sub-national-level coordination but donors cannot fund government directly, non-governmental intermediaries may be able to support government entities.
Yes
Should the donor work with this government? Consider: prescribed eligibility parameters, sanctions, any government role in perpetrating conflict, national and/or subnational government accountability to and legitimacy in targeted communities, experience (the donor's own or other donors') working directly with the government, government capacity including in public financial management. If there are capacity questions, consider if programming through government might strengthen these.
Yes Explore government funding options — see next step
No Public or government services may still be supported through other partners. Move to Tier 2 — local actors
4
Explore government funding options
Agreement types and complementary investments
›
Note Consider size and scope: manageable for government staff and of sufficient scale to be worthwhile.
Agreement types
  • Budget support: generalized resource transfer, less donor control
  • Milestone-based: pay for results, oversight and performance incentives
  • Cost-based: reimburse eligible expenditures, higher administrative burden
Complementary investments
  • Technical capacity strengthening (demand driven)
  • Financial management capacity strengthening (based on joint risk mitigation plans)
  • Third-party monitoring
  • Civil society component to reinforce transparency or performance of government funding or to reach different communities (see Tier 2)
For objectives not best addressed through government or where the donor cannot fund government directly, consider Tier 2
Tier 2 Local Non-Governmental Organizations, Collectives, and Networks
Where local non-governmental actors are well placed to deliver — or could be rapidly brought into that position — these partnerships should be prioritised. Diaspora or regional actors may also be relevant to consider depending on the context.
Note A landscape analysis of local and national NGOs and local private sector actors is recommended to support this step.
5
Determine if the donor can fund local actors directly
Local NGOs/collectives/networks, national NGOs/collectives/networks, private sector
›
Can the donor fund local entities directly?
Consider: donor policy on funding local entities, issues related to possible sanctions, the size and number of awards that would be implicated and donor staff capacity to manage this scope, procurement requirements related to local organizations, the procurement lead time needed to complete a local award relative to needs.
No Move to Tier 3 — international actors
Yes
Is direct funding the right relationship?
Consider: if the local organization is interested in direct donor funding, if a direct relationship would do no harm, if the organization is locally rooted and representative of and accountable to the communities it serves (including marginalized communities, as relevant), if the donor can co-create (vs. dictate) program approaches with the local organization.
No Move to Tier 3 — international actors
Yes Consider scope of approach — see next step
6
Assess the scope of the approach against a local organization's mandate, reach, and capacity
›
Does the approach fit within a single organization's remit, reach, and capacity?
Consider: if the contributions of an organization would more coherently and efficiently drive results if done as part of a coordinated approach.
Yes Proceed to direct local funding considerations — see below
No
Can a local organization or fund serve as an intermediary, consortium lead, or network hub to coordinate multiple organizations/approaches?
Consider: Grantmaking organizations, federated structures, networked models, locally led coalitions or consortia, locally rooted pooled funds (Resources include: Locally Led Pooled Funds in the Global South (NEAR, 2026)), Intermediary Models for Locally Led Humanitarian Action (ALNAP, The Share Trust, 2025)
Yes Proceed to Considerations for directly funding local partners — see below
No Move to Tier 3 — international actors
7
Considerations for directly funding local intermediaries (and other types of local partners)
Outreach, award design, complementary investments, donor practices
›
Tailor outreach and eligibility to the local landscape
  • For competitive awards, consider limiting competition to local entities
  • Employ targeted local outreach around funding opportunities and processes
  • Streamline due diligence where possible to consider only factors relevant to the award
Design awards with reduced administrative burden and set partners up for success
  • Identify funding mechanisms with lower administrative burden (e.g., milestone-based, prize-based)
  • Conduct joint risk identification and mitigation planning; build risk mitigation investments into awards
  • Ensure full cost recovery, including indirect costs
Consider complementary investments (for example)
  • Capacity strengthening, based on the partner's priorities
  • Security and protection support
Shift donor practices to support local partnerships
  • Ensure sufficient donor staff with capacity to accompany new partners and build trusted relationships
  • Create regular touchpoints, open door policy
  • Translate award documentation and regulatory materials, as relevant
  • Emphasize flexible funding to allow adaptation
  • Pursue multi-year funding where possible
Resources include
↺ Revisit Return iteratively to Tier 2 — there may be multiple opportunities for local partnerships and the local ecosystem may expand over time. Move to Tier 3 after considering all local opportunities.
Where the donor cannot fund local non-governmental organizations, collectives, and networks directly, consider Tier 3
Tier 3 International Intermediaries
International intermediaries include UN agencies, multilateral development banks, INGOs, pooled funds, or private sector contractors that have the ability to manage government donor funding. Engage these international intermediaries for activities that cannot currently be done through direct partnerships with government or other local actors, including providing support to local actors that cannot be funded directly. Donors should justify why an international entity is the appropriate choice over a local entity. International actors will often be necessary, but preferencing local engagement with required justification for international partnerships raises the bar for selecting international partners and pivots from an international-first default. Where international partners are used, apply criteria on the quality of local partnerships and locally led approaches to partner selection and award design.
8
International intermediary — unique comparative advantage
›
Is there an organization with a unique comparative advantage?
Consider: unique roles, capacities, relationships, access not held by other actors.
Yes Proceed with those elements in an award — but limited to those elements only.
No Continue to consider options — see next step
9
Identify the balance between multilateral and bilateral funding
Donor policy, funding size, staff capacity, control preferences
›
Note Certain mechanisms have characteristics that can lend themselves to locally led action. Consortia that include local partners, for example, can offer opportunities for local leadership in governance and emphasize joint decision making. Pooled funds can also include local representation in governance and, by aggregating resources from multiple donors, can offer pathways to participation for organizations that cannot access bilateral awards directly. But there is heterogeneity within these categories, and other types of international mechanisms, including INGO-led bilateral awards, can also elevate local leadership. The mechanism matters less than the intermediary itself. Individual intermediaries' approaches, incentives, and capacities — and the way the donor relationship draws those out — can matter as much or more than the mechanism type.
Lean bilateral if the donor has: Sufficient funding and staff to manage direct awards; preference for more control; earmarks require specific approaches.
Lean multilateral if the donor has: Insufficient staff for many awards; limited funding that would be more impactful when pooled; comfort with less control; strong policy support for multilateralism.
Remember: Answer will likely be both — the question is about the right balance, not a binary choice.
10
Bilateral award design and partner selection
Localisation quality criteria for INGOs
›
Scope of work design
Note Budget must also be allocated for these activities
  • Frame with expectations of locally led approaches and co-creation
  • Include expectations of local partner transition and/or local delivery as relevant
  • Require local feedback and accountability loops
Partner selection criteria
  • What does the entity's local networks look like and how established are those relationships?
  • What is the quality of the entity's participatory processes (e.g., co-created proposals, ongoing co-creation)?
  • Does the entity have or propose mechanisms for downward accountability to local communities (e.g., local feedback loops, participatory MEL)?
  • Does the proposed chief of party have a track record of elevating local leadership?
  • Do relevant proposed key personnel have capacities in participatory processes, facilitation, community engagement, as well as cultural and linguistic ties to targeted populations?
  • Does the entity have policies guiding its approach to localization? (but don't rely on policies alone — use references from prior downstream partners)
11
Multilateral partner selection (including pooled funds)
Governance, access, and track record on local leadership
›
Multilateral mechanism selection criteria
  • Does the entity's governance structure give local actors significant and meaningful decision-making authority — not just consultation?
  • Do grantmaking processes allow a diverse set of local organizations to access funding? If certain classes of organizations are excluded, consider how complementary investments can broaden reach.
  • Does the country representative/fund manager have a track record of elevating local leadership in governance?
  • Does the agency/fund incentivize staff to devolve funding and decision-making to local levels?
  • Does the agency/fund have policies guiding its approach to localization (but don't rely on policies alone — use references from prior downstream partners)
Courtenay Cabot Venton