Insights
In this guest blog, Jeffrey Matsu, Chief Economist at CIPFA, highlights the link between appraisal and evaluation.
As budgets tighten and scrutiny intensifies, UK local and combined authorities are being asked not just to justify investments but to demonstrate their impact. This requires more than compliance – it demands an integrated approach to both appraisal and evaluation.
A recent report from CIPFA and the Government Outcomes Lab at the University of Oxford, Maximising Value for Money: Case Studies on Smarter Public Spending, offers valuable lessons for practitioners seeking to strengthen this linkage and embed value for money (VfM) thinking across the project lifecycle.
From appraisal to evaluation: bridging the policy lifecycle
Appraisal and evaluation are often seen as distinct steps – one preceding funding decisions, the other reviewing outcomes post-delivery. In practice, however, these stages must be linked to ensure that intended benefits are not only planned but realised and evidenced. The HM Treasury Green Book and Magenta Book provide the formal backbone for this lifecycle approach, with the former focused on ex-ante appraisal and the latter on ex-post evaluation.
Yet many local authorities struggle to embed this full-circle thinking. The case studies of the London Borough of Redbridge and Thames Valley Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) show how tailored tools and approaches can bridge that gap, especially when appraisal feeds directly into evaluation and vice versa.
Redbridge: enhancing financial justification through structured appraisal
In Redbridge, the adoption of the GO Lab-CIPFA VfM Toolkit marked a shift in how digital transformation projects were justified and monitored. Traditionally, projects were appraised using internal business case templates and assessed primarily on outputs and savings. However, Redbridge’s digital delivery team recognised the need for a more structured appraisal method that could also support later-stage evaluation.
By applying the VfM Toolkit early – at the business case stage – they aligned project appraisals with the council’s long-term strategic goals. This meant articulating not just
costs and anticipated savings but also projecting non-financial benefits such as service quality improvements and equity impacts.
Crucially, the Toolkit’s structured design encouraged practitioners to think ahead to evaluation. For example, by identifying measurable outcomes and assigning weightings to different VfM criteria (economy, efficiency, effectiveness, equity), project leads built a foundation for later performance assessment. When evaluations were subsequently conducted on 15 projects, including in adult social care and community services, the alignment between initial expectations and realised benefits became clearer and more actionable.
Thames Valley VRU: embedding evaluation in appraisal from the start
Where Redbridge focused on using appraisal tools to set up evaluation, the Thames Valley VRU approached the problem from the opposite angle: ensuring every appraisal began with evaluation readiness. Their VfM life cycle approach explicitly integrates appraisal and evaluation across five key approval gates, from ideation to post-implementation review.
This approach is particularly instructive for combined authorities managing complex, multi-agency interventions. Rather than viewing evaluation as a final check, the VRU treats it as an ongoing process, beginning with baseline assessments and piloting. For example, their Schools Navigator and Focused Deterrence interventions were appraised with evaluation methods built in from day one. This meant randomised control trials could be launched rapidly, and impact could be quantified with precision.
In the Focused Deterrence project, the VRU reported a 54% reduction in crime harm and a 40% drop in knife-related offences among participants. These results weren’t incidental – they were enabled by robust initial appraisal that embedded evaluation conditions, like control groups and clearly defined outcome measures. The data fed directly into broader VfM judgments and informed the case for continued or expanded funding.
Lessons for public financial management and outcomes frameworks
The Redbridge and Thames Valley case studies reveal several practical insights for local government practitioners:
1. Appraisal must set up evaluation
Whether using the VfM Toolkit or a more bespoke lifecycle model, initial appraisals should define not only expected costs and benefits but also how those benefits will be measured. This requires clear theories of change and the identification of data needs from the outset.
In Redbridge, applying the VfM Toolkit led to more consistent definitions of what success looked like across departments – essential when projects spanned digital services, social care and environmental services.
2. Evaluation closes the feedback loop
Too often, evaluation is treated as optional or retrospective. The Thames Valley VRU’s life cycle approach treats evaluation as the ongoing validation of appraisal assumptions. Their systematic gates ensure that only interventions with a clear evidence base and feasible implementation plans proceed – saving public money by preventing ill-conceived projects from scaling.
3. Use mixed methods to capture full value
Financial returns are critical but incomplete. Both Redbridge and Thames Valley used qualitative data – like staff satisfaction and improved inter-agency coordination – to complement harder metrics. This mixed-methods approach helped them articulate value in terms beyond direct savings, such as enhanced equity and long-term community outcomes.
4. Align with strategic and financial priorities
Redbridge aligned its VfM assessments with the council’s corporate plan, ensuring projects supported broader policy aims. Meanwhile, the Thames Valley VRU structured its interventions around public health principles, reflecting a broader strategic approach to violence reduction. In both cases, the integration of appraisal and evaluation helped ensure that projects were not only viable but relevant.
5. Capacity and leadership are critical
A common theme in both case studies was the importance of internal champions and leadership buy-in. In Redbridge, buy-in from the s151 officer and corporate directors enabled the use of the VfM Toolkit. At Thames Valley, dedicated research staff ensured that evaluation was not sidelined by short-term delivery pressures.
For many public sector bodies, developing this capacity remains a barrier. Investing in internal evaluation teams – or partnering with academic institutions or peer learning groups like GO Lab-CIPFA Value in Public Finance network – can help overcome this.
Conclusion: from toolkits to culture change
As pressures on public budgets intensify, the need for smarter public spending is clear. But smarter spending isn’t just about choosing the right projects – it’s about choosing projects that are designed to learn and improve. This means moving beyond compliance-focused appraisal toward a model where evaluation is anticipated, planned for and resourced from the start.
Redbridge and Thames Valley VRU show that this is achievable. Whether through structured toolkits or lifecycle methodologies, the key is ensuring that the questions asked at appraisal – What will this cost? What will it deliver? How will we know? – are carried forward through implementation and answered by evaluation.
For practitioners in local government, the challenge is to integrate these lessons into existing workflows, align them with finance team expectations, and build a culture that treats learning as central to spending decisions. Only then can we ensure that public money is not just spent but spent well.
