Research and analysis

GCRF value for money assessment: executive summary

Published 16 May 2025

Executive summary

The Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) is a United Kingdom (UK) government fund, managed by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and set up to address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs).^{[footnote 1]} GCRF was designed to build on UK strengths, boosting research excellence, international partnerships (especially in developing countries) and research with impact, supported by transparent and rigorous decision-making processes for funding and spending.^{[footnote 2]} In doing so, it would “strengthen capacity for research, innovation and knowledge exchange in the UK and developing countries through partnerships with excellent UK research and researchers.”^{[footnote 3]}

The five-year evaluation of GCRF seeks to assess the extent to which the Fund has contributed to its objectives and impact, and consists of a multi-year evaluation (2020–25). The present study, the year 4 value for money (VfM) assessment, seeks to assess VfM in GCRF. This study builds on previous phases of VfM assessment as part of the GCRF evaluation and precedes the final VfM assessment in year 5. Consequently, the findings from this report do not represent a final judgement on VfM for the Fund but rather provide an indication of the performance of the Fund at the time of reporting. An overview of the GCRF evaluation is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Overview of the GCRF evaluation

In order to assess VfM, it is important first to articulate the value proposition of GCRF – the value that GCRF was intended to create. Broadly, in line with the GCRF strategy, this is:

• that the use and adoption of GCRF-supported research-based solutions and technological innovations in specific countries, locations and/or sectors enables stakeholders in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) to make progress in their settings towards addressing complex development challenges
• that these efforts will contribute to the achievement of the SDGs, enhancing people’s well-being, improving equality for people of all genders, and promoting social inclusion, economic development and environmental sustainability in developing countries
• that these improvements are intended to be sustained into the future by enduring equitable research and innovation (R&I) partnerships between the UK and LMICs in specific countries, contexts and sectors, supporting enhanced capabilities for challenge-oriented R&I in all regions.

Assessing VfM in GCRF

Given the nature of this intended value proposition, a highly quantitative approach to VfM assessment is not appropriate in this context, because many of the intended outcomes are intangible and non-monetizable and cannot be readily quantified. Instead, we used an innovative, rubric-based approach to assess VfM. This approach is informed by common VfM assessment practice at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), and incorporates learnings from GCRF VfM assessments undertaken earlier in the evaluation.^{[footnote 4]}

The approach assesses award performance against a set of 4 dimensions:

• Economy
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Cost-effectiveness.^{[footnote 5]}

These dimensions include a set of 14 underlying subdimensions, against which each award sampled was rated as unacceptable (0), poor (1), acceptable (2), good (3), excellent (4), ‘not applicable’, or ‘insufficient evidence’. The subdimensions included in the rubric were developed based on documented evidence on the characteristics that contribute to delivering value in research for development investments. Rubric subdimensions were further tested and refined through a process of consultation with all partner organisations (POs) to develop the finalised approach used here. The dimensions and subdimensions are summarised in Figure 2 and are explained in more detail in Section 2 of this report.

Figure 2: Dimensions and subdimensions of the VfM rubric

This study involved assessment using the VfM rubric of a sample of 50 GCRF awards taken from the wider evaluation, and drawing on a range of primary and secondary data. The awards funded under GCRF are diverse, belonging to different award types. Most relevant to this study are thematic research grants, strategic investments, applied innovation programmes, network awards, and early and mid-career awards. Box 1 provides a brief introduction to the key features of these programmes.

Box 1: Overview of relevant GCRF award types^{[footnote 6]}

Thematic research grant programme-funded projects were led by a UK-based principal investigator (PI) in response to a specific, thematic call.

Strategic investments were similarly funded particular projects or activities, but these were one-off awards. All such awards within this sample focused on secondary data analysis (i.e. they were desk-based work focusing on analysis of existing datasets).

Applied innovation grants were more market-oriented in nature, involving collaborations with industrial partners to work on later stages of the research cycle.

Network awards provided funding to build sustained engagement and collaboration on emerging or challenging research areas. Often, these awards also included activities such as workshops, events and communications to establish new relationships.

Early and mid-career awards were research grants directed to researchers in early stages of their careers. Our sample included early career awards from 2 very distinct programmes that should be considered separately:

• Springboard awards provided funding to support early career biomedical scientists based in eligible higher education institutes within the UK.
• The Future Leaders – African Independent Research (FLAIR) programme provided postdoctoral fellowships for African early career researchers (ECRs) at sub-Saharan African institutions. It is distinct from other GCRF programmes in awarding funding directly to African fellows and their host institutions, and so it was among the very few GCRF investments that were led by Global South countries.

Findings on overall VfM in GCRF

Evidence from this sample suggests that GCRF offers good VfM, with 86% of awards rated as having adequate, good or excellent performance across Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness. Performance for each dimension is shown in Figure 3. Overall, the evidence provided offers assurance that the awards we have assessed largely offer good VfM, reinforced by wider investments into the work GCRF has funded – a good indicator of the value of GCRF R&I.

Figure 3: Number of awards performing at an unacceptable, poor, adequate, good and excellent level within the sample of 50 across the first three dimensions of Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness

Looking at the subdimension level, average performance across all awards is adequate (2) or higher for all subdimensions except for subdimension 1.3 (investment in equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) processes), where the average value across all awards is poor (1.96 out of 4.00). Performance for each subdimension is shown in Figure 4. Again, this provides some confidence that on average this portfolio of awards is providing VfM, although we note that there is significant underlying variation at the award level and, potentially, scope for improvement in some subdimensions.

Figure 4: Average scores of all awards across rubric subdimensions (subdimensions are described in Figure 2)

Cost-effectiveness is not assessed in the full set of awards, owing to limitations in the availability of evidence. Across the 3 Cost-effectiveness subdimensions assessed for the 50 awards (150 assessments in total), we determined that the subdimension was not applicable in 21% of cases (31/150) and that we had no evidence, or a low level of evidence, for assessment in 35% of cases (52/150). However, we were able to identify some evidence about additional funding – whether this was follow-on funding subsequent to the award or co-funding from other sources – for 34 of the 50 awards. This additional funding from other sources can be considered to be an indication of cost-effectiveness, providing evidence on the extent to which other external sources place value on the work conducted through GCRF funding and are willing to invest further to support the ongoing development of those ideas, findings and outcomes. The additional funding we were able to identify amounted to over £75 million, compared to an initial investment from GCRF of around £30 million. However, it should be noted that over half of that £75 million was associated with just 5 of the 50 awards, and only 11 of the awards in the set received additional ongoing funding that exceeded the value of the initial GCRF investment. Therefore, care should be taken in generalising this finding to a wider set of awards at this stage, or indeed to the GCRF portfolio as a whole, because there may be substantial sampling effects.

Wider observations with regard to VfM in GCRF

Beyond this core analysis, we also explored the VfM scores and the underlying evidence in more detail, looking at how different award sizes and types performed on different subdimensions. Some key observations – which are explored in more detail in the main body of the report – include the following:

• Awards have different VfM strengths and weaknesses and have had to focus their resources on specific aspects of performance. Although the overall performance across the sample is good, there is significant variation at the subdimension level. Only 19 of the 50 awards (38%) are rated as having adequate performance on all subdimensions across Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness. These strengths and weaknesses may reflect variance in funding calls which emphasised different drivers of impact and VfM. The VfM strengths and weaknesses of award types within this sample are presented in Table 1.
• Award size seems to be particularly important in terms of partnership and network development (outside of specific network awards). Smaller awards were more likely to perform poorly in terms of developing sustainable equitable partnerships. This suggests that building equitable partnerships typically requires a higher level of resource.
• Performance is strongest in dimensions relating to research quality and positioning for use. However, award duration seems to be important for translation and dissemination. Awards funded for longer than 2 years in our sample performed significantly stronger in terms of investment in strategies to position research for use. Longer grant periods may enable better engagements with non-academic stakeholders, with more opportunities for building trust and establishing new relationships that foster communication over time.
• Performance is poorest on dimensions related to EDI overall. However, network awards seem to have performed better than average in this area. This may be because of networks’ emphasis on inclusivity and diversity of perspectives and equitable representation from interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral stakeholders. Also, projects led by LMIC-based PIs perform better in terms of equitable balance of research funding.

Table 1: Strengths and weaknesses in VfM performance by award type

Award type	Strengths and weaknesses
Network awards	Network awards tend to be smaller awards and perform strongly on dimensions related to collaboration, networking and interdisciplinarity. Many network awards had an explicit interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approach, and creating networks with broad reach and engagement was a critical focus of many awards. Network awards also perform disproportionately well across the whole Effectiveness dimension and appear to offer particularly good VfM for awards at lower funding levels. This indicates that networks, particularly when comprised of local stakeholders, may enable research translation and delivery of outcomes. This is key to ensuring the use and uptake of R&I – a key step towards real world impact. Network awards performed better than average on dimensions related to EDI, where performance tended to be poor across the full sample. This may be because of networks’ emphasis on inclusivity and diversity of perspectives and equitable representation from interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral stakeholders.
Innovation awards	Innovation awards performed strongly on aspects linked to cross-sectoral working involving highly interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral teams, often including as partners or team members individuals or groups from government, civil society organisations or the private sector.
ECR awards	ECR awards perform very strongly on aspects such as capacity building, because these were typically fellowships to ECRs in LMICs. ECR awards perform less well on networking and interdisciplinarity, reflecting the fact that largely these are awards to individuals and they do not have a substantial collaborative focus.

Conclusions and recommendations

Overall, the evidence provided here offers assurance that on the whole, the awards we have assessed offer good VfM. This is reinforced by evidence from our cost-effectiveness analysis that there have been substantial wider investments into the work GCRF has funded. These investments, in the shape of follow-on funding or investment in innovation, help ensure the continued development and uptake of GCRF R&I. However, we can identify some recommendations for future official development assistance (ODA) funds, including the International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF).

1. Future investments should tailor award type to intended purposes – for example LMIC fellowship awards for capacity building or network awards for collaboration and network development – and ensure a mixed portfolio to address all the requirements of effective research for development. Relatively few awards were able to perform well on all subdimensions, suggesting that there was a need to focus effort and resources relative to the key priorities for that award or award type. Alternatively, investments could be designed to perform well on all subdimensions of VfM, although this would likely require greater funding levels and may contribute to less targeted awards.

2. Allocate additional resources, recognising the time needed for effective networking and partnership development with LMIC partners – either within other awards or as additional network awards. Other than specific network awards (which are often smaller in size), larger awards performed much better on the networking and partnership development elements of performance. This reflects the time and effort involved in these relationship development processes, which can be difficult to accommodate alongside original research or other activities in smaller awards. In future funds, networking resources should be set out – either as separate small awards or as ringfenced additional funding beyond that allocated for research – to ensure that these activities are adequately resourced.

3. Network awards should be included as part of the portfolio of future investments to complement other award types. These awards typically seem to offer good VfM, performing particularly well on aspects related to collaboration, networking and interdisciplinarity.

4. Most awards should be at least 2 years in length in future investments, to support dissemination and uptake of research findings. We found a distinct difference in performance, on average, between awards that were longer than 2 years and those that were shorter than 2 years in terms of the ‘positioning for use’ and ‘dissemination of findings’ subdimensions of VfM.

5. Future funds should set expectations and provide support to award holders to take a wider lens when considering EDI, looking beyond just consideration of gender. Generally, EDI was the weakest area of performance across the VfM rubric for this set of awards, and poor consideration of wider aspects of diversity beyond gender was a common issue, as has also been identified in previous stages of the GCRF evaluation.

6. Future investments should aim to award funds directly to LMIC PIs where possible to improve equity. Awards were significantly more likely to have an equitable distribution of funding where they had an LMIC-based PI. For fellowships in particular, there was a significant differential in VfM performance for those awards that were awarded directly to LMIC fellows compared to other (UK-based) fellowship awards.

7. Future funds should consider collecting information on follow-on funding and co-funding in a systematic manner and in a way that also captures information on LMIC funding. At present, data on follow-on funding and co-funding is patchy. The main source of evidence available is Gateway to Research, which was the source of the vast majority of evidence for the analysis conducted in this study. However, this data source has some limitations. First, it only covers UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) awards; second, it typically only provides information on further funding to PIs, most of whom are UK-based, so information on funding to LMIC partners is more limited. Future funds could systematically capture information of follow-on funding and co-funding to all partners as a part of end-of-grant reporting processes.

8. Scores on effectiveness may be subject to time lags in realisation of outcomes and the availability of evidence to support non-traditional outcomes that are common to research for development. Assessment of VfM should take this into consideration.

1. HM Treasury. 2019. ‘UK aid: tackling global challenges in the national interest’. GOV.UK. As of 31 May 2024. ↩

2. BEIS. 2017a. UK Strategy for the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF). GOV.UK. As of 31 May 2024: ↩

3. Ibid. p.3. ↩

4. See DFID. 2011. ‘DFID’s approach to Value for Money (VfM)’. GOV.UK. As of 31 May 2024 , and adapted in King, J. and OPM VfM Working Group. 2018. OPM’s approach to assessing value for money. Oxford Policy Management Ltd. As of 31 May 2024. ↩

5. Ibid. ↩

6. Academy of Medical Sciences. 2024. ‘Springboard’. As of 31 May 2024; The Royal Society. 2024. ‘FLAIR Fellowships’. As of 31 May 2024. ↩