Due Diligence Afghanistan: Screening Partners Before You Fund Them
A funding decision is easy to announce and hard to undo. Once money has moved and activities have started in a partner’s name, a weakness visible beforehand becomes a problem to manage in public. That is why due diligence Afghanistan donors and grant managers commission is done before funding, not after a problem emerges.
Due diligence is not a judgement on a partner’s intentions. It is a structured, evidence-based assessment of whether an organisation can receive, manage, and account for funds, deliver the work it proposes, and meet donor safeguarding and compliance expectations. This guide explains what a credible screen covers and how findings should shape a funding decision. It offers general guidance only, and describes no specific partner, donor, or past engagement.
Why partner screening matters before funding
The cost of a weak partner is rarely just financial. A partner that cannot keep clean books, retain staff, or safeguard participants can delay a program and damage trust with communities and donors. Those risks are much cheaper to surface at screening, when conditions can still be set or a decision still deferred.
Screening also protects the partner. A clear, fair process lets a capable organisation show its systems and agree realistic expectations before delivering at scale. A screen that only looks for reasons to say no is a filter, not due diligence.
What a credible screen covers
Governance and registration
Is the organisation legally constituted, who governs it, and who can commit it? Expect registration documents, a constitution or articles, a board list, and evidence that the board meets and records decisions. Look for separation between governance and management, managed conflicts of interest, and a clear answer to who is accountable if something goes wrong. Gaps here mean a condition, such as a governance plan before a larger grant, not necessarily a no-go.
Financial health and controls
Financial due diligence asks whether money will be handled safely, not whether an organisation is wealthy. Review recent statements, bank arrangements, budgeting, and — most importantly — internal controls: who authorises spending, who records it, who reconciles accounts, and whether one person controls a payment end to end. Ask how spending is tracked against budget and how cash is handled where banking is limited. A clean audit opinion is useful, but no substitute for seeing controls in operation.
Program capacity
Can this partner deliver what it proposes, at the scale and in the places proposed? Capacity is more than headcount: experience, staff retention, field presence, partnerships, and systems for planning and reporting. Test capacity against the specific proposal, not in general. A team that has run small community projects may not be ready for a multi-province program, and a team experienced in one province may lack access in another. Ask for work plans, staffing tables, and past reporting — and check whether it shows problems honestly, or only successes.
Safeguarding and protection from sexual exploitation and abuse
Safeguarding is not an administrative add-on. Expect a written policy, a code of conduct, a safe and confidential reporting route, and evidence staff have been briefed on both. Ask who is responsible, how complaints are handled, and what happens to a report once made. Where a partner works with children or vulnerable adults, the bar is higher still. A policy with no named focal point, training record, or usable reporting route is a material gap, with a remedial condition before funding.
Reputational and integrity checks
Integrity checks look for what a partner may not volunteer: adverse media, sanctions or debarment listings, litigation, unresolved donor findings, and conflicts of interest among senior staff or board members. Checks should be proportionate and documented, with findings put to the partner for explanation before they are treated as conclusions. A single adverse item does not automatically disqualify an organisation, but a pattern — repeated findings, undisclosed relationships, or refusal to explain — should weigh heavily.
Documents and evidence to ask for — and what gaps mean
A typical evidence pack includes registration and governance documents, recent statements and budgets, bank and control descriptions, staffing and program records, safeguarding policies and training evidence, and references from previous funders. Agree the list in advance, with a deadline, so a partner is not judged on documents it was never asked for.
Gaps mean different things: a document that does not exist suggests a system to build, one that is out of date suggests a routine to restore, and one that is withheld raises a question to resolve before funding. Record each gap, its significance, and the action required.
Risk rating: how findings translate into conditions, monitoring, or a no-go
Due diligence should end in a decision, not a report that sits on a shelf. Findings are commonly translated into a risk rating — low, medium, or high — with a clear rationale. A low-risk partner may proceed with standard reporting; a medium-risk partner may proceed with conditions, such as a governance plan, tighter reporting, or a smaller first tranche; a high-risk partner may be deferred, or declined where gaps go to integrity, safeguarding, or basic financial control. The partner should be told what was found and what would need to change.
Due diligence as ongoing assurance, not a one-off file
A screen is a snapshot: staff leave, finances shift, and a partner sound at appraisal may struggle a year later. Due diligence should therefore start an assurance relationship, not a file closed once funding is approved. Conditions agreed at screening should be tracked, with dates and owners, and delivery checked independently where risk warrants it — for example through third-party monitoring.
Common mistakes
- Paper-only checks. Documents reviewed without a conversation, site visit, or check against a bank statement prove little. Paper should be tested, not just collected.
- Skipping field verification. Verify at least a sample of claimed field presence, staff, or assets, rather than taking claims at face value.
- No follow-up on conditions. Conditions never tracked create a false sense of control.
- Confusing a good proposal with a capable partner. A well-written proposal proves writing skill, not delivery capacity. Test the organisation behind it.
Questions a donor or grant manager should ask any due-diligence provider
- What will you check, and how will you verify it beyond the documents provided?
- How do you assess governance, finance, capacity, safeguarding, and integrity — and in what depth for this grant?
- Will you visit sites or speak with staff and participants, and how will you choose the sample?
- How will you handle sensitive findings, and can the partner respond before the report is finalised?
- How will findings be rated, and how does each rating translate into conditions, monitoring, or a no-go?
- What conditions will you recommend, who will own them, and how will follow-up be tracked?
- How will you keep your work independent of the partner being assessed?
Listen for specifics: named methods, a sampling approach, a rating framework, and a follow-up plan.
Frequently asked questions
Does due diligence mean we do not trust the partner?
No. Due diligence is how a funder acts responsibly with money that is not its own. A fair, transparent screen gives the funder evidence for its decision and the partner a clear statement of expectations.
What if a partner is new and has little track record?
A new organisation should not be judged as if it were established, but it should not be exempt from screening either. Focus on governance, controls, and the capacity of the people involved, set a smaller first phase with tighter reporting, and agree what evidence is required before any scale-up.
What happens after the screen if conditions are agreed?
Conditions should be written down, with owners and dates, and tracked as part of grant management. Funding tranches and reporting should reflect whether conditions have actually been met.
Talk to Blue Presto
Blue Presto Consultant Services is a Kabul-based firm helping donors, grant managers, and international organizations assess partners before funding, and keep that assurance alive through delivery. Learn more about our due diligence and risk advisory services, see how third-party monitoring can follow up on screening conditions, or contact us to discuss a partner assessment. Credible Evidence. Confident Decisions.