ICAI Year 4 Follow-up Inception Report
1. Introduction
1.1 The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is the independent body responsible for scrutinising UK aid. We focus on maximising the effectiveness of the UK aid budget for intended beneficiaries and on delivering value for money for UK taxpayers. We carry out independent reviews of aid programmes and of issues affecting the delivery of UK aid. We publish transparent, impartial and objective reports to provide evidence and clear recommendations to support UK Government decision-making and to strengthen the accountability of the aid programme. Our reports are written to be accessible to a general readership and we use a simple ‘traffic light’ system to report our judgement on each programme or topic we review. Our reports make recommendations, to which the Department for International Development (DFID) provides a management response, setting out actions to address those recommendations.
1.2 ICAI is approaching the end of its first four years’ mandate, since its launch in May 2011. With the second phase of ICAI’s operations commencing in May 2015, this provides an opportunity to reflect on and capture what has been learned. Rather than following up only on the previous year’s reports as usual, we have, therefore, decided to follow up on the reports that have been published in Years 1, 2 and 3.
1.3 In line with ICAI’s mandate, we will conduct follow-up work on key recommendations issued in ICAI reports. We will assess DFID’s and other government departments’ progress made on issues we identified during follow-up work undertaken in previous years, as well as the action taken on ICAI’s recommendations in Year 3 reports, in order to provide an overall assessment of DFID’s response to our work to date. This process is designed to:
- hold DFID and other government departments to account and assess progress against management actions;
- assess whether ICAI’s recommendations have had an impact on departments’ work and, where possible, on the lives of intended beneficiaries;
- improve the impact on intended beneficiaries of the programmes we have reviewed; and
- enable learning, from both the reports and the recommendations to date, for ICAI’s second phase.
2. Background
2.1 As part of the cycle of accountability, follow-up work on recommendations and DFID’s response is an important component of ICAI’s mandate. We have conducted follow-up investigations to DFID’s responses to key recommendations from ICAI’s Year 1 and Year 2 reviews and reported the results in our Annual Reports to the House of Commons International Development Committee.1 Our findings have highlighted where our recommendations and the resulting management actions have led to (or have the potential to lead to) increased efficiency and effectiveness of aid programmes and improved impact for intended beneficiaries. We review whether DFID has accepted our recommendations, how they have been implemented
and the extent to which this response addresses the issues we identified.
2.2 In all cases, we have sought to understand how DFID’s response has made an impact on the ground for intended beneficiaries. In total, we have conducted follow-up work on 22 reports from Years 1 and 2.
2.3 This review will therefore be the third follow-up exercise undertaken by ICAI. Given that we will be following up the whole of ICAI’s body of work to date and drawing some wider conclusions on the effectiveness of DFID’s response to our recommendations, we plan to publish a separate report on the results of our work, alongside our Annual Report, in Spring 2015.
3. Relationship to previous follow-up reviews
3.1 This follow-up work will build on and add to previous follow-up work from Year 1 and Year 2 ICAI reports. It will use an updated version of the Assessment Framework developed for previous follow-up work and it will assess progress on key issues and risks arising from earlier follow-up work.
4. Methodology
Overview of the proposed methodology
4.1 This review will have a different structure to that of previous follow-up reviews. The core of the work will be a follow-up exercise on our Year 3 reports, similar to the follow-up work we have previously undertaken that has featured in our Annual Reports. In addition, we will undertake a detailed follow-up of Year 1 and 2 reports where major outstanding matters and risks (defined as “key issues”) have been identified based on our analysis of updates provided by DFID on previous follow-up work. As part of this, we plan to undertake an education case study to focus on the education-themed reports and issues.
4.2 The overall conceptual approach remains similar to that adopted in previous years and is reflected in an updated Assessment Framework (see Figure 2 on page 7). For Years 1 and 2 particularly, our work will focus on the impact and learning dimensions of the Framework and
on identifying whether the trajectory of programmes and the likely impact on beneficiaries have been influenced by management actions taken in response to our recommendations. This will include an assessment of whether management actions and other changes made are likely to be transformative. For example, in an education programme, a change from monitoring enrolment data to focussing on learning outcomes would represent a transformative change in approach that could impact the lives of intended beneficiaries.
4.3 The results of the work on Year 3 and on Years 1 and 2 will be analysed to provide an overall assessment of DFID’s response to our work to date.
Years 1 and 2 follow-up work
4.4 We will assess the progress made on key issues and the cumulative impact of the changes that DFID and other government departments have made as a result of our findings and recommendations from Years 1 and 2. This will focus particularly on the underlying issues that
we raised in our reports and the substance of what has changed on the ground as a result of action taken by DFID. Figure 1 provides a diagrammatic overview of our proposed approach to the Year 1 and 2 follow-up work. This sets out the reports we have identified as containing key issues which require in-depth follow up, as well as the education-themed reports. Three of the four education-themed reports also contain key issues which we will follow up.
**We recognise that there are education-related aspects to Girl Hub but this will be reported separately from the education case study in the final deliverable
4.5 To commence the process, we sought updates from DFID with regard to the key recommendations outstanding from our first two years of work. We have obtained written updates on progress from UK Government Senior Civil Service (SCS) leads for all Year 1 and 2 reports, in response to our specific, tailored questions that focus on the most important issues and risks. Based on analysis of these updates, we have identified a small number of reports where there are issues we propose following up further, including an education case study to focus on the education-themed reports and issues.
4.6 Reports on key issues and risks: We have set out below potential lines of enquiry relating to key issues identified from our previous follow-up work:
| Report | Key issue | Suggested lines of enquiry |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of the InterDepartmental Conflict Pool | Our previous follow-up work identified that several actions in response to ICAI’s recommendations had been postponed until the introduction of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF). Other actions taken in response to our recommendations were insufficient, such as the new strategic guidance which mainly codified existing practice without providing substantive guidance to country teams or leading to any reorientation of the portfolio. The 2014 SCS update confirms that insufficient progress has been made in changing Conflict Pool systems and processes. | To assess whether the design of the new CSSF has learned lessons from the Conflict Pool, including the recommendations raised by ICAI. Although the CSSF has not yet been launched, we propose an assessment of its design to date. |
| DFID’s Oversight of the EU's Aid to Low-Income Countries | In our previous follow-up work a key concern remained around the limited assurance that DFID has on the contributions it makes to the EU, especially given DFID’s limited discretion to vary them. An important part of this was the need for DFID to have more on-the ground evidence of the impact of EU programmes globally. In addition there was a continuing lack of systematic guidance on how DFID offices should contribute to EU country strategies. | To explore how DFID has developed the level of assurance it has over the contributions it makes to the EU, in terms of the results framework and other sources of assurance. This will include plans for the next MAR exercise. To assess what further guidance has been given to DFID offices on how to contribute to EU strategies, to ensure better combined impact from UK and EU funds and a greater focus on actual EU performance. |
| DFID’s Peace and Security Programme in Nepal | The previous follow-up report found that the results framework was 'little more than a high level wish list: it does not reflect priorities agreed with government, its scope is limited to less than the strategy and it is incomplete'. | To assess whether the new results framework is appropriately focussed, robust, reflects government priorities and has been developed with and approved by the Government of Nepal. To investigate whether DFID Nepal’s new methodology to improve the transparency of its partner selection systems is effective. To assess whether information management systems have improved sufficiently. |
| DFID’s Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programming in Sudan | Our 2013 follow-up work raised concerns about DFID’s tendency to design over ambitious programmes in Sudan, particularly in the fields of water resource management and public-private partnerships. DFID was also unable to assess the value for money of its funding via the UN Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) programme. DFID Sudan was unable to state whether DFID had adopted a new strategy to deliver basic services in humanitarian situations and to integrate its humanitarian and development assistance activities in the context of long-term crises | To assess whether DFID Sudan has engaged in programmes with more realistic objectives. To consider whether there are alternatives to UN CHF programmes that may offer better value for money. To assess whether DFID has managed to integrate effectively its humanitarian and development activities work. |
| Girl Hub: A DFID and Nike Foundation Initiative | Our 2013 follow-up work found that DFID, Girl Hub and Nike Foundation had taken action to address deficiencies in risk, governance, financial management and performance which had resulted in improvements. Concerns remained, however, around the levels of development expertise within Girl Hub, in-country succession planning, professional development and insufficient efforts to build local capability. | To review the progress made by DFID and Girl Hub and assess the impact and value for money of the programme in both London and its country offices (Rwanda, Nigeria and Ethiopia). |
4.7 For these reports, the work programme will include follow-up discussions with the SCS leads or teams on their written updates. This will be followed by document reviews and interviews with DFID staff and other stakeholders in the UK and in-country to triangulate our understanding of the issue or risk and the underlying reasons for the extent of progress made by DFID. We will also undertake contextual assessments and collect evidence about the ongoing importance and relevance of the issues to the future programme. The output of this work will be a summary, similar to the summary report produced for our previous follow-up work.
4.8 Focus on education: An education ‘case study’ will focus on the education-themed reports from Years 1 and 2 (these addressed DFID’s support in six countries: India, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Rwanda and Nigeria). Follow-up studies have been reported in the last two Annual Reports. For this Year 4 follow-up, the education case study will address how DFID has taken into account ICAI recommendations which covered a variety of aspects of the delivery of technical advice and financial aid. The education agenda has progressively turned more attention to the quality of education. This was strongly reinforced in DFID’s publication in 2013 of its Education Position Paper (in part responding to an ICAI recommendation), which placed pupil learning at the centre of DFID support.
4.9 The case study will follow a limited number of lines of enquiry, set out below, seeking to understand the progress being made and the significant challenges facing governments, together with their influence on DFID’s support. These lines of enquiry will include pupil learning and assessment, quality of education (including teacher effectiveness), out of school children and consideration of some innovative approaches being supported by DFID (e.g. the private sector). Some of these newer developments are still at an early stage but there is value is assessing their current progress and experience to date.
| Lines of enquiry |
|---|
| Quality of education - What evidence is there that the quality of education has changed or improved in our case study countries? - Have countries been able to keep pace with increased enrolment through constructing schools and classrooms and increasing the number of competent teachers? - Has the school curriculum been modified to ensure access for all pupils and a teaching role for which teachers have been trained and given support? |
| Pupil learning - What evidence is there that pupil learning has been placed at the heart of DFID’s education programmes Have log frames been modified to reflect this focus? - Have countries managed to design practical methods to test the learning progress of pupils? If so, how have they responded to the results of pupil testing and are the results publicised? |
| Out of school children - How have countries responded to the challenge of out of school children and what strategies are in place to support this segment of the population (including on a local level)? Is it a priority for the country? - Has the school approach been modified to ensure formerly out of school children are making progress in terms of learning? |
4.10 This study will rely on the availability of completed reports and data provided by country offices. It is known that DFID has a wide array of information on the lines of enquiry being proposed. Telephone interviews will be conducted with country officers and with senior staff in DFID UK. In addition, the opportunity to visit some schools and have face-to-face interviews with countrybased staff will be feasible through the allocation of time by ICAI teams who will be visiting some of these countries as part of other studies (Ethiopia, Rwanda, India and Pakistan).
4.11 Desk reviews and discussions with DFID, both centrally and in-country, and with third parties will also be undertaken in relation to Tanzania for the report on DFID’s Education Programmes in Three East African Countries and for the report on DFID’s Education Programmes in Nigeria. The output of this education case study will be a short section for inclusion in the overall followup report.
Follow-up of Year 3 Reports
4.12 For the follow-up on Year 3 reports, we will adopt the same approach that has been used in our previous annual follow-up exercises. We will review the response of DFID and other government departments to our recommendations and what action, if any, has subsequently been taken. This will be done through a desk review and through discussions with DFID centrally and in country offices and with third parties. The indicative questions for follow-up on Year 3 reports will be based on the updated follow-up Assessment Framework in Figure 2.
| 1. Objectives: Do DFID’s proposed actions address the recommendations and are they well designed? |
| 1.1. Do these proposed actions coherently address all key component aspects of the recommendations? |
| 1.2. Are actions timely, realistic and holistic and do they fully reflect the country context(s) concerned? |
| 2. Delivery: Are actions being implemented effectively and are they resulting in better programme delivery? |
| 2.1. Are actions being delivered to the deadlines set out in the management response? |
| 2.2. Is there evidence of actions evolving due to changing circumstances or other factors in order to enhance the way in which recommendations are being addressed? |
| 2.3. Have actions improved the delivery of the programme? |
| 3. Impact: What difference have the actions made to the impact of the programme for intended beneficiaries, including women and girls? |
| 3.1. Are actions addressing the issues raised by the report and recommendations? |
| 3.2. Do intermediate outcomes delivered as a result of the actions provide a basis for a future trajectory leading to impact? |
| 3.3. Are actions leading to better outcomes for intended beneficiaries, including for women and girls? |
| 4. Learning: What has been learnt or shared and what could have been done better? |
| 4.1. What has been learnt as a result of implementing the actions and have these lessons been shared effectively across the department? Have there been improvements in policy and staff culture? |
| 4.2. Could there have been more effective actions to address the recommendations? |
| 4.3. Is there evidence that different recommendations could have addressed the issues raised by the report more effectively? |
4.13 We will conduct follow-up investigations on all Year 3 reports and our nutrition review, which was published at the beginning of Year 4. This will consist of the following reports:
1) DFID’s Contribution to the Reduction of Child Mortality in Kenya;
2) DFID’s Bilateral Support to Growth and Livelihoods in Afghanistan;
3) DFID’s Contribution to Improving Nutrition;
4) DFID’s Empowerment and Accountability Programming in Ghana and Malawi;
5) DFID’s Health Programmes in Burma;
6) DFID’s Private Sector Development Work;
7) DFID’s Support for Palestine Refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency;
8) DFID’s Support to Agricultural Research;
9) DFID’s Support to Capital Projects in Montserrat;
10) DFID’s Trade Development Work in Southern Africa;
11) How DFID Learns;
12) Rapid Review of DFID’s Humanitarian Response to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines;
and
13) The Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s and the British Council’s use of aid in response to the Arab Spring.
4.14 The output of this work will be: a 3-4 page briefing note for Commissioners prior to the SCS meeting; and a summary similar to the summary report produced for previous follow-up. This will provide an assessment of the progress DFID has made in implementing our recommendations and the extent to which the underlying issues we raised have been addressed. Commissioners will undertake a detailed review of all follow-up work and hold discussions with SCS leads or Directors/Directors General as appropriate to explore the key issues and findings.
Overall analysis
4.15 The follow-up work (the response to our Year 1 and Year 2 key issues, education study and the follow-up of Year 3 reports) will then be analysed as a whole together with the residual work we will complete on the remainder of the reports from Years 1 and 2. This residual work will include analysis of the updates received from DFID and UK-based desk research. It will feed into the final report based on our analysis and synthesis of the follow-up work overall.
Follow-up for key issues associated with previous multilateral reviews will be covered in the current Multilaterals study and therefore not duplicated here.
4.16 We will seek to present our findings on a thematic basis, as we identify common issues across all the areas of follow-up covered. There will be a synthesis workshop of team leaders involved in follow-up work that will bring together all the material in a discussion that will focus on the themes across the entire four-year reporting cycle. This discussion will focus on three key topics:
1) the key underlying issues that appear in common across all the reports reviewed;
2) the substance of what has changed on the ground as a result of DFID action in response to ICAI recommendations; and
3) how DFID has reacted to the reports overall and what ICAI can learn from this.
4.17 The objective of the overall analysis will be to identify the key issues and themes from our work: the areas where DFID action on recommendations has had the greatest impact; and the most significant issues where further action by DFID is required. Taken together, this will provide an overall assessment of DFID’s response to our work to date.
Engagement with DFID
4.18 For key issues identified during the Year 1 and Year 2 follow-up work, meetings will take place with the relevant Director or Director General. These will involve Commissioners, the team leader, relevant SCS leads and a member of the ICAI Secretariat.
4.19 For the Year 3 follow-up work, the evidence gathered will inform meetings with the SCS lead or, where key issues have been identified, Directors/Directors General responsible for the reports and their related management actions. These will involve the Lead Commissioner, the team leader and a member of the ICAI Secretariat.
5. Roles and responsibilities
5.1 This review will be led by the Team Leader. The Senior Consultant and Consultant will lead the overall coordination of the work and the initial planning and analysis; they will also be the main points of contact with the Secretariat. KPMG will oversee and support the review under the overall leadership of the ICAI Project Director. The Principal Consultant will support the team leader and the core team in the analysis and drafting of the report.
5.2 The core team comprises the following members:
| Team member | Role |
|---|---|
| Team Leader | Team Leader |
| Senior Consultant | Methodological approach, analysis, drafting and overall project management |
| Consultant | Analysis, drafting coordination and project management |
| Principal Consultant | Methodological approach, analysis and drafting |
Team Leader
He is a Director and the contractor Team Leader for the ICAI programme overall and, therefore, has had a close involvement in all of the ICAI reports to date. He was the Team Leader for the review of DFID’s Oversight of the EU’s Aid to Low-Income Countries and team member of the review of DFID’s Support to the Health Sector in Zimbabwe. He has wide-ranging experience of the public, private and civil society sectors in the UK and internationally, particularly in Africa. He is also a value for money expert.
Senior Consultant
She is a Chartered Accountant with a Masters in Development Studies and worked for over seven years with KPMG across public sector and non-profit organisations. She has also worked at the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office and at the Institute of Development Studies. Within KPMG, she worked for two years as part of the internal audit team at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and has experience of auditing charitable funds at a range of healthcare organisations. She has worked on several ICAI reports.
Consultant
She is a consultant with an international background in project management, education and not-for-profit management. She is a teacher by training and has been at the forefront of education policymaking in the UK and United States. She was Director of Operations for a US-based educational non-profit, acting as manager and teacher instructional coach to programme managers as well as the key relationship management link to partner non-profits. Her work has also focussed on educational social enterprises in Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.
Principal Consultant
He is an experienced consultant with over 10 years of international development experience for a range of national governments (including the UK and US Governments) and funders. His focus has been on fragile and conflict states and he is on the UN panel of experts for conflict states. In particular his work has emphasised investment and private sector development in a post-conflict environment and he has also worked on security reform related projects.
5.3 It is proposed that the individual follow-up reviews be undertaken by the original team leader or a key team member (if the team leader is no longer available). Where this is not possible, an expert in fragile and conflict-affected states will lead the follow-up review and will, where necessary, consult with original team members. After initial contact by the ICAI Secretariat and request for any additional briefing to the published progress report, the team leader will then be responsible for the on-going relationship with the designated DFID point of contact and all other documentation requested for the follow-up review.
5.4 All Commissioners will be involved in the follow-up work, with a particular focus on the reports where they were the Lead Commissioner.
| Team member | Role | |
|---|---|---|
| Year 3 | Business in Development report Team Leader Business in Development report Team Member | DFID’s Private Sector Development Work |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | DFID’s Empowerment and Accountability Programming in Ghana and Malawi | |
| Expert in fragile and conflict affected states; Afghanistan experience | DFID’s Bilateral Support to Growth and Livelihoods in Afghanistan | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | DFID Contributions to the Reduction of Under-Five Mortality | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | DFID’s Trade Development Work in Southern Africa |
|
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | DFID’s Health Programmes in Burma | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | DFID’s Support to Agricultural Research | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | DFID’s Contribution to Nutrition | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | DFID’s Support to Capital Projects in Montserrat | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | How DFID Learns | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | DFID’s Support for Palestine Refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | The Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s and the British Council’s use of aid in response to the Arab Spring |
|
| Years 1 and 2 ‘Key issues’ | Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | Evaluation of the Inter-Departmental Conflict Pool |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | DFID’s Oversight of the EU's Aid to Low-Income Countries | |
| Expert in fragile and conflict affected states | Water, Sanitation and hygiene programming in Sudan | |
| Expert in fragile and conflict affected states with Nepal experience | Peace and Security Programme in Nepal | |
| Team Leader of DFID’s Approach to Delivering Impact report | Girl Hub: A DFID and Nike Foundation Initiative | |
| Years 1 and 2 Education case study | Overall lead for Education case study; original Team Member | Education programmes in Nigeria |
| Overall lead for the Education case study and Team Member of the original report for this follow-up Team Leader of DFID’s Approach to Delivering Impact report | Education Programme in Three East African Countries | |
| Overall lead for the Education case study Business in Development report Team Member | Support for Health and Education in India | |
| Overall lead for the Education case study Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | UK’s Bilateral aid to Pakistan | |
| Years 1 and 2 Residual work | Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | UK Humanitarian Response in the Horn of Africa |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | Work through the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | Effectiveness of DFID's Engagement with the Asian Development Bank | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | Effectiveness of DFID's Engagement with the World Bank | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | Management of UK Budget Support Operations | |
| Expert in fragile and conflict affected states; Afghanistan experience | Programme Controls and Assurance in Afghanistan | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | Support to the Health Sector in Zimbabwe | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | Livelihoods Work in Western Odisha | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | Climate Change Programme in Bangladesh | |
| Team Leader of the original report for this follow-up | Evaluation of DFID's Electoral Support through UNDP | |
| Team Leader | DFID’s Approach to Anti-Corruption and its Impact on the Poor | |
| ICAI Secretariat | DFID’s Use of Contractors to Deliver Aid Programmes | |
| ICAI Secretariat | DFID’s Support for Civil Society Organisations through Programme Partnership Arrangements |
6. Management and reporting
We will produce a first draft report for review by Commissioners by the week commencing 2 March 2015, with time for subsequent revision and review prior to completion and sign off in the week commencing 18 May 2015.
7. Expected outputs and time frame
7.1 The main deliverables will be:
| Phase | Timetable |
|---|---|
| Planning | |
| Concept note Inception Report | August 2014 December 2014 |
| Research and fieldwork | |
| UK-based fieldwork | October 2014-February 2015 |
| Rwanda | November 2014 |
| Ethiopia | November 2014 |
| India | December 2014 |
| Pakistan | January 2015 |
| Analysis and write-up* | |
| Initial findings roundtable First draft report Report finalisation | w/c 9 February 2015 w/c 2 March 2015 w/c 25 May 2015 |
*The timetable post-dates the end of the Framework Contract between KPMG and DFID but this is due to be
extended, subject to agreement between the relevant parties
8. Risks and mitigation
8.1 The following sets out the key risks and mitigating actions for this work.
| Level of risk | Risk | Specific Issues | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Short time-frame for follow-up work, inadequate evidence to support robust findings. | DFID’s response to ICAI Year 3 recommendations is incomplete or unpublished, creating delays whilst DFID prepares a response. Due to the short time frame for the follow-up work, interviews, document requests and evidence analysis could be curtailed, leading to inadequate evidence to support robust findings on DFID’s response to ICAI’s Year 3 recommendations and verifiable action against their set targets. | Secretariat will request DFID to publish its responses to all Year 3 reviews within agreed timeframe. Teams will ensure they send out timely interview and document requests and will capture new policies and procedures. |
| Low | Lack of evidence of impact and/or timeliness for impact and/or assessment of DFID’s actions in response to ICAI’s recommendations. | Impact and data to support that impact may not be available due to the short time frame for any actions based on ICAI recommendations. | The assessment teams will review and comment on impact where information allows. |
| Low | Stakeholders for follow up work are unreachable or are no longer involved in the specific report subject matter. | For this follow-up work, we will aim to conduct interviews with the same stakeholders in the reports. In some instances, stakeholders and interviewees for reports may have moved on within DFID and/or implementing partners. Beneficiaries may also be harder to reach due to the primarily desk-based nature of this follow-up work. | The evaluation team will be guided by the stakeholder interviews teams conducted during the reports and by project implementers in deciding what consultations are appropriate. In the event that key stakeholders cannot be accessed, every effort will be made to identify alternatives to receive informed and balanced feedback. We will ensure that the report clarifies our approach. |
| Medium | Recommendation follow-up work published in June looks out of date. | The process of multiple follow-up reviews running in parallel means that first drafts of summary reports will be submitted for review to the ICAI Secretariat and Commissioners in February and therefore may look out of date by the time of publication in June. | The Secretariat will request an additional briefing during the Introduction to SCS leads. The team will ensure any further progress made by DFID since its last update is captured in the appropriate interviews. Fieldwork will continue after the SCS meeting to follow up on relevant and up to date points. |
| Medium | SCS and Director- General level meetings do not take place | Risk is that SCS and Director-General level meetings do not take place in time for synthesis meeting with team leaders and the initial findings, adding to the body of evidence for analysis and reporting. | The Secretariat will plan in advance and schedule in meetings with SCS and Director General level personnel. The review team will also follow up individually with DFID link teams. |
9. How this ICAI review will make a difference
9.1 This review will follow up on the ICAI recommendations issued in Year 3 reports and assess progress on actions DFID has taken in response to those recommendations. It will also follow up the initial follow-up investigations of Year 1 and 2 reports and seek to draw out common issues and themes.
9.2 This review is an opportunity to examine the trajectory of change that DFID has implemented in the light of our reports over the last four years and the extent to which DFID has learned from our recommendations. This work will also flag key issues where DFID still needs to work to address our recommendations, while also seeking to provide evidence of the impact of work already undertaken in response to our initial reports and subsequent follow-up work. Furthermore, the report will provide an overview to the response to date of ICAI’s findings and recommendations, synthesising our findings and DFID’s management responses. The review will also provide an opportunity to assess how DFID has reacted to the reports overall and what ICAI can learn from this for the future.
Footnotes
1 Independent Commission for Aid Impact: Annual Report to the House of Commons International Development Committee 2013-14, ICAI, 2014, http://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ICAI-Annual-Report-13-14-FINAL.pdf; Independent Commission for Aid Impact: Annual Report to the House of Commons International Development Committee 2012-13, ICAI, 2013, http://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ICAI-Annual-Report-2012-13.pdf.