Summary of results from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s 2024 public consultation

Introduction

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is responsible for examining the effectiveness and value for money of the UK’s development aid spending. We do this by publishing evidence-based reports which assess different parts of the UK development programme, for Parliament, government, development experts and the UK taxpayer.

Between 4 September and 16 October 2024, we ran a consultation to hear your ideas and suggestions for our future work. The consultation sought your views on which aspects of the UK development programme were the highest priority to review, as well as how we carry out and communicate our work. We will use the insight from the consultation to help us maximise our effectiveness over the next four years and ensure Parliament and others can hold the government to account.

Background

The UK development programme is continually evolving to respond to complex challenges and crises. Funded by the UK taxpayer, it can be a contentious subject, especially when the UK’s public finances are under pressure. In this context, effective, independent scrutiny plays a vital role in promoting transparency and accountability for the UK’s aid spend.

ICAI Commissioners are appointed after a competitive process overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public appointments, serving for a four-year term. ICAI’s new Commissioners, Liz Ditchburn and Harold Freeman, started in 2024. The appointment of ICAI’s new Chief Commissioner, Jillian Popkins, has been confirmed by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and her start date will be announced in due course.

Number of responses

We received 234 responses from a wide range of stakeholders. Respondents did not have to provide demographic information. But from those who did, we can see that a wide range of people completed the consultation. They include:

  • 52 government officials (largely from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but also from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the British Council and the Home Office)
  • 2 Parliamentarians
  • 45 people from civil society organisations
  • 26 people from private sector companies or independent consultants
  • 7 academics / students
  • 13 people from outside the UK
  • 50+ members of the public.

A list of organisations represented by individual responses is provided in Annex A.

30 of the responses were submitted on behalf of an organisation. We estimate that around 40 responses showed a degree of coordination, but we are confident that this has not changed the substance of the results. A list of organisations happy for their name to be disclosed is included in Annex B.

What you told us

Which aspects of the UK’s aid programme are the highest priority for review?

There were 234 responses to this question. The top ten themes were:

  1. The value for money of different types of development assistance, in particular the use of ‘best buys’ (low-cost interventions or investments that deliver high-impact results) and how they compare with more typical programming.
  2. The UK’s approach to providing development assistance in humanitarian crises and how well such assistance is aligned with internationally recognised best practice. Assessing the UK’s approach to the crises in Sudan was highlighted especially.
  3. Climate change emerged as an important theme, including looking at its links with global health, migration, rural livelihoods and urban development. There were also suggestions for ICAI to look at how UK aid is used to help other countries adapt to and mitigate against the effects of climate change, and for ICAI to re-examine the UK’s international climate finance.
  4. The UK’s approach to poverty reduction and whether development assistance is reaching the most marginalised people.
  5. The UK’s use of different funding channels and the decision-making process behind such choices.
  6. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s (FCDO) performance and capabilities since its establishment in 2020, and the relationship between aid and diplomacy.
  7. The effectiveness and coherence of UK development assistance spent by other government departments, beyond the FCDO.
  8. The UK’s approach to localisation (the process of shifting power, resources and decision-making authority away from international donors towards local and national actors in countries that receive development assistance).
  9. The UK government’s approach towards development funding on a country-by-country basis, such as looking at how and where aid is allocated, spend in low-income countries compared to middle-income countries, and staffing, expertise and local knowledge in country offices.
  10. The impacts of the reduction of the aid spending target.

Other priorities suggested for review include UK development assistance to Gaza, Ukraine, and Africa as a whole; UK development assistance to sectors such as health, education and social protection; UK development spend on innovation and research; the UK’s strategic partnerships with other countries and organisations; and the long-term effectiveness of the UK’s development assistance.

There were also calls for ICAI to conduct more high-level, strategic reviews across programmes and departments, rather than focusing on individual interventions. Suggestions included comparing spend in different regions, across different government departments and funding channels and ensuring development expertise is deployed appropriately.

How can we improve the ways in which we examine the effectiveness and value for money of the UK’s aid programme? Is there anything that you would find useful from ICAI that we do not already provide?

There were 215 responses to this question. The key recommendations for ICAI to consider included:

  • Adopt a consistent, quantitative approach to assessing the cost-effectiveness of different development interventions, such as using cash benchmarking (comparing the effectiveness and efficiency of development interventions to simply giving people money).
  • Focus more on long-term impacts, outcomes and the sustainability of development results rather than processes; review programme plans before they have been approved; look more at adaptive and long-term programming; and take a broader and more cross-government approach.
  • Develop a more systematic follow-up process and track government responses and implementation.
  • Focus more on community-driven solutions (localisation) and the priorities of those people and communities aid most effects.
  • Broaden stakeholder engagement and engage stakeholders earlier in the review process.
  • Work more collaboratively with government departments and raise more awareness about ICAI across government.
  • Make reports easier to understand for general audiences.

The consultation revealed a desire for ICAI to adopt more rigorous quantitative approaches, while maintaining focus on long-term impacts and local perspectives. Stakeholders want improved accessibility of findings and stronger follow-up mechanisms for recommendations. Taking a more collaborative approach to working with government and improving stakeholder engagement were other key themes.

How can we improve how we communicate about our work and make our reports accessible to more people?

There were 199 responses to this question. The key recommendations for ICAI to consider included:

  • Help improve the transparency and accessibility of data relating to UK development assistance.
  • Enhance stakeholder engagement, including across FCDO and Parliament.
  • Produce reports in more accessible formats.
  • Increase our online presence through blogs, podcasts and use of social media.
  • Do more media outreach.
  • Organise regular events to help launch ICAI reviews and raise ICAI’s public profile.
  • Consider ways to make our work more accessible to people in other countries.

The responses highlight the importance of increasing awareness about ICAI. There was particular emphasis on making ICAI’s work more accessible and impactful, and available to a wider audience, including though digital channels and the media.

Do you have any other views on ICAI that you would like to share?

There were 157 responses to this question. Most of the responses reiterated key points made in response to the earlier questions. Other areas of feedback included:

  • Positive feedback about the importance of ICAI and value of our scrutiny role.
  • That ICAI should use more subject matter experts and consider establishing expert panels to help improve review quality and increase diversity.
  • That ICAI should highlight successes of UK aid, as well as areas in need of improvement.
  • Suggestions to boost awareness of ICAI and improve the dissemination of findings across government, Parliament, the development sector and public.

Next steps

The results from this consultation will complement other work we are conducting to inform our overall approach for the next four-year term of ICAI, led by our new Commissioners.

We have started work on two new reviews that address key themes you told us are important. We are looking at UK aid to Sudan, an urgent priority given the current conflict and humanitarian crisis. We are also reviewing the effectiveness of the UK’s support for the transition to clean energy in low- and middle-income countries, as part of a continued focus on climate.

We plan to announce further review topics in the new year, in consultation with Parliament’s International Development Committee. We will continue to use your feedback to inform the development of our work programme over the next four years.

There were also clear themes from your feedback that will inform our thinking on how we conduct our work. These include, but are not limited to, how we work with our stakeholders, the need to make our work more accessible and the need to better embed learning from our reviews across government.

We will take forward your ideas and suggestions as we continue to shape our strategy for the new Commission.

Annex A: List of organisations represented in individual responses

This list shows a range of organisations represented in the individual responses to ICAI’s consultation. This list is not exhaustive as some people did not provide their organisation’s name and some said they were retired or freelance.

 

Afghanaid

Ambitious Impact

Australian National University

Boston Consulting Group

Boulding Consulting

British Army

British Council

British High Commission Nairobi

Cardiff University

Carne Group

Casa Real, Mozambique

Center for Global Development

Centre for Enabling EA Learning and Research

Change Bio

Christian Aid

Clean Air Fund

Clear Solutions

Code Nation

Conciliation Resources

Condor Initiative

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

Duchy College, part of Cornwall College

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Effective Altruism UK

FarmKind

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Forge Design Consultancy Ltd

Frontline AIDS

Fundação Getulio Vargas

GiveWell

Giving What We Can

Global Alliance on Health and Pollution

High Impact Professionals

Home Office

Humanitarian Outcomes

Institute of Development Studies

Institute for Global Health, UCL

International Alliance for the Sustainable Development Goals (AI-ODD)

Jigsaw education

Joint Medical Stores

JustSystems

London School of Economics Effective Altruism Society

London School of Economics and Political Science

McKinsey

Medair

Natura & Co

ODI

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Open Philanthropy

Oxfam

Plan International UK

Reall

SALVE

School of Oriental and African Studies

The Policy Practice ltd

Transform Trade

UKDayOne

University of Birmingham

University of Bristol

University of Bristol School for Policy Studies

University of Manchester

World Bank

World Vision International

Annex B: List of organisations that submitted a response

This is a list of those who submitted an organisational response to ICAI’s public consultation and were happy for their names to be disclosed.

 

3B Impact

Acacia Development Associates Ltd

Action for Global Health

Bath Makerspace Society

Bond

CAFOD

CALP

Cities Alliance

Commonwealth Association of Architects

EU-CORD

Happier Lives Institute

International Alliance for the Sustainable Development Goals (AI-ODD)

Joint Medical Stores

London School of Economics Effective Altruism Society

Minority Rights Group

Norwegian Refugee Council

Plan International UK

Reall Limited

Clean Air Fund

Save the Children UK

Transform Trade

World Vision UK