The UK aid watchdog has accused the Department for International Development (DfID) of a "clearly unacceptable" tendency to use evidence selectively, criticised its failure to capitalise on the £1.2bn it spends on research and told it to listen properly to those it is meant to be helping overseas.
In a scathing report published on Friday, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (Icai) identifies "a culture where staff have often felt afraid to discuss failure", and in which dissenting or challenging views are sometimes filtered out as they are passed up the departmental hierarchy.
The commission – which was told by one head of department that "DfID does not fail" – concludes that the prevailing climate has often led staff to spin evidence and results. "We are concerned that the emphasis on reporting results can lead to a bias to the positive," it notes.
"DfID staff are sometimes using evidence selectively. It appears that this is often driven by managers requiring support for decisions. Whilst such selective use of evidence is not the usual practice across the department, it appears to be occurring with sufficient regularity to be a concern. It is clearly unacceptable."
The commission advises DfID to continue to encourage "a culture of free and full communication about what does and does not work", adding: "Staff should be encouraged always to base their decisions on evidence, without any bias to the positive."
The report, How the Department for International Development learns, refers to the civil service code, which stipulates that civil servants must not ignore "inconvenient facts or relevant considerations" when giving advice or making decisions.
According to the commissioners, DfID also needs to show it is reaping the benefits of the £1.2bn it has allocated for research, evaluation and personnel development between 2011 and 2015. "It generates considerable volumes of information, much of which, such as funded research, is publicly available," they say. "DfID itself is less good at using it and building on experience so as to turn learning into action. [It] does not clearly identify how its investment in learning links to its performance and delivering better impact."
One of the most damning criticisms concerns the department's relationship with its beneficiaries. Five of 12 case studies identified significant deficits in how DfID learns from those it is charged with helping: commissioners were told of one project that had not been visited by a member of DfID staff for five years. They argue that the benefits of proper engagement cannot be overemphasised, highlighting the case of an entire HIV and Aids intervention that was redesigned after an adviser spent time in a village talking to the young people the programme was meant to help.
"This was one example among many of direct contact between DfID staff and beneficiaries fundamentally changing the decisions that staff have already made," they say. "Without this level of real learning, the task of scaling up, delivering in fragile environments and achieving lasting impact will be all the more difficult."
The commission also found that locally employed staff were not being listened to adequately despite their practical knowledge and experience and generally "only give [their] opinion if asked".
On the basis of its findings, the commission has awarded DfID its second-worst rating – amber-red – meaning that significant improvements are required as "the programme performs relatively poorly overall against Icai's criteria for effectiveness and value for money".
The Icai lead commissioner, Diana Good, described much of DfID's work as positive, but said its failure to learn from its mistakes was frustrating.
"They are trying to make changes and they're showing a willingness to encourage people to come forward with areas where things have not gone right – and actually DfID is frequently praised by other donors and other agencies for their willingness to innovate and take risks," she said. "But the vital thing is to believe that all learning – whether it's learning from things that have worked well or have not worked well – is valid, and that needs to be something that everybody in the organisation is encouraged to be open and honest and frank about."
A DfID spokeswoman said: "DfID delivers targeted results, maintains value for money and is recognised as one of the most transparent donors in the world. We continually look at our processes in light of external evaluations like Icai. We have already introduced strong measures such as greater ministerial oversight of spend and tough new rules for suppliers to drive better value for money for taxpayers."
