In June, the International Development Committee met for the second hearing of evidence for their ongoing inquiry into FCDOs approach to Value for Money. Earlier in the year, LAMP Development, represented by Jennifer, provided evidence to the committee, alongside Dianne Stewart of the Global Fund and Abdoulaye Fabregas from the OECD. Jennifer shares her experience here.
It was insightful and enjoyable to be on the panel giving evidence to the International Development Committee as they started their inquiry. Along with the other panel members, I confirmed that at LAMP our definition of value for money broadly aligns with the FCDO 5 Es framework and we have worked with many programmes to adapt it to their context. For example, this includes training local teams to adapt definitions and help measure economy, efficiency, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in ways that resonate with local realities. I also noted that in an era where aid funding increasingly has multiple objectives – that beyond poverty reduction – shared priorities such as the sustainable development goals, global challenges and humanitarian resilience are now more explicit, and sustainability of investments continues to be central to programme design. This means that value for money assessments are broader than traditional cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness calculations, and need to be more nuanced and richer. Quantitative return-on-investment analysis is important, but insufficient as a single measure of VFM.
The committee members asked a number of questions related to value for money in multi-lateral funding. I responded based on experience of working with several funders such as UNICEF, WHO and Global Fund. Whilst it is possible to hold multilateral partners to account for UK Aid-funded programme delivery through MOUs and the FCDO programme operating framework (PrOF), including Annual Reviews, there is also a tension when reporting requests fall outside the existing global level agreements. This can limit the UK visibility on funding through to results e.g. cost per output or outcome – you might know how many lives were saved, but not exactly how every pound was spent. More broadly, I also highlighted that while multilateral delivery has strengths, any decision to shift significant funds away from bilateral spend to cover multilateral commitments must be justified — especially when UK bilateral efforts can deliver equally strong outcomes.
Giving evidence was not always simple, especially as I was attending online via a link up to the committee room. It may have been easier to get to the heart of some of the questions had I been there in person. Nevertheless, I was proud to have shared voices from practitioners in the field, and the contributions from LAMP consultants to the written evidence, and preparing for the session, was hugely valuable (despite being difficult to quantify!).
Most importantly, the session gave us the opportunity to reinforce that value for money isn’t a dry economic calculation – it’s a moral imperative. Every pound spent on global health, or girls’ education in Kenya, Sierra Leone and Nigeria must be an investment, not a wasted opportunity. It’s up to all of us to make sure that investment counts.
Final Thoughts
The Committee’s questions have affirmed the role that careful, evidence-based scrutiny plays in upholding public trust. Getting value for money isn’t just about proving efficiency—it’s about showing that aid works and that UK taxpayers can see results. I’m honored to have contributed to that process and hopeful that this inquiry leads to stronger, more transparent, and more impactful assistance around the world.
Jennifer Armitage is Managing Director of LAMP Development, based in Nairobi, Kenya. LAMP supports FCDO-funded health and education programmes on value-for-money practice across Africa and Asia.