Follow-up of 2017-18 reviews

Each year we conduct a follow-up assessment of ICAI reviews from the previous year. This process is an important step in the chain of accountability, providing the International Development Committee (IDC) and wider development stakeholders with evidence on whether the government has taken appropriate action in response to ICAI’s recommendations.

This year we will conduct follow-up assessments of eight ICAI reviews published in 2017-18:

For each review we will assess:

  • The adequacy of the government’s response to our recommendations, whether the government responded effectively to the recommendations and the underlying issues they sought to address.
  • The progress made on actions stated in the government’s response, whether the actions were well designed and implemented, and whether they are likely to improve the effectiveness and value for money of UK aid.
  • Key developments in the areas covered by the review since publication to assess changes in the context and to identify emerging issue areas which could inform our ongoing review programme.

Government responses to ICAI reviews are available to read online.

Outstanding areas from 2016-17 follow-up

During our 2016-17 follow-up we identified four areas outstanding from the previous year’s reviews and requiring further attention. These will be subject to a second follow-up this year. The outstanding areas are:

  • Transitioning from traditional aid: We will assess DFID’s progress on putting in place key principles for managing its changing relationships with partner governments and civil society organisations in middle-income countries as they ‘graduate’ from conventional bilateral or financial aid.
  • Prosperity Fund: We will look at the Fund’s progress with (i) developing a set of portfolio-level results indicators and associated systems for measuring results and learning from experience; and (ii) implementing its new procurement framework. We will also assess whether the newly merged governance structure of the Prosperity Fund and the CSSF has explicit and challenging procedures in place to ensure that aid-funded programmes are ODA eligible.
  • Irregular migration: UK aid programmes need robust procedures to ensure that they do not contribute to the risk of harm that migrants encounter. We will assess progress on (i) identifying and managing the risks of harm to vulnerable individuals in the UK’s migration-related aid programming; and (ii) the development of monitoring and evaluation arrangements for phase two of DFID’s Safety, Support and Solutions Programme for Refugees and Migrants.
  • Inclusive growth: We will assess DFID’s progress on refining its approach to inclusion – to leave no one behind – in economic development programming, both at the country portfolio and individual programme levels.