If you work in a public body and you are responsible for publishing spending data, this guide is for you. The transparency score measures how easy it is for the public to understand where money goes. Small changes to how you prepare and publish data can make a big difference.
What we check: whether your spending files are published as PDFs or as structured data files.
Why it matters: PDFs are hard to analyse. Researchers, journalists, and citizens can't easily sort, filter, or total up figures inside a PDF. CSV or Excel files let anyone work with the data using basic tools.
What to do:
What we check: whether each spending line has a description that explains what the money was for.
Why it matters: A description like "Office costs" or "Professional services" doesn't tell the public much. Descriptions like "IT equipment for the Galway regional office" or "Legal advice on procurement appeal Q2 2026" make the spending accountable.
What to do:
What we check: how many different descriptions appear across your spending records.
Why it matters: If 500 lines all say "General expenses", it looks like the data was rushed or automated without care. Varied, specific descriptions show that each payment was reviewed and recorded properly.
What to do:
What we check: whether each spending line has a supplier or vendor code.
Why it matters: A supplier code makes it possible to track how much a public body spends with individual companies over time, even if the company name changes or has slightly different spellings.
What to do:
What we check: whether each spending line has the name of the supplier that was paid.
Why it matters: The public has a right to know who receives public money. Supplier names are one of the most basic pieces of information needed for accountability.
What to do:
Taking ten minutes to run through this checklist before publishing can move your organisation from a low transparency score to a high one. Better data means better accountability and better trust with the public.