Management Board | Development Committee | Audit Committee | Human Resources Committee

DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings

Meeting on 19 April 2007

In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement the Management Board will aim to:

A. communicate the vision, role, direction and priorities of DFID to staff and other stakeholders;

B. ensure DFID's financial resources and staff are allocated and managed effectively;

C. monitor and improve DFID's performance;

D. protect and enhance DFID’s reputation as a highly effective international development organisation.

9.30-12.00 Location: PS 3W12 (Open Session)

Time	Topic	Attending	Purpose	MB Obj
9.30	Quarterly Management Report (4th ¼ 2006) including update of the Corporate Risk Register	Sam Sharpe	To assess DFID’s performance, on the basis of programme expenditure, IT, HR and risk indicators.	A, B, C & D
10.00	DFID’s Public Service Agreement (PSA) and Departmental Strategic Objectives (DSOs)	Sam Sharpe	To agree DFID’s draft PSA and DSOs for submission to HM Treasury	A
11.00	MB self assessment	Lucy Livings	To review the self-assessment, agree any changes needed prior to sign-off, and identify action for the next year.	B, C & D
11.30	MB sub-committees - Annual Review	Mark Lowcock (Development) Bill Griffiths (Audit) Sue Owen (Human Resources) Sue Owen (SCS)	To consider progress against the sub-committees TOR and agree any action needed	A, B, C & D

Attendees

Suma Chakrabarti (Chair), Sue Owen, Minouche Shafik, Mark Lowcock, Helen Ghosh (Non-Executive Director) and Bill Griffiths (Non-Executive Director)

Observing

In PS: Sara Barlow; Siobhan Carey; Mike Smithson; Juliet Field; Ed South; Steven Bartlett; Hugh McGarvey; Freddie Carver; Anna Lake; Chris Athayde; Julia Bunting; Harshad Sarvia; Gerard Howe; Pat Slavin SCS Induction Group; Simon Gill

Mandu Reid (DCMS), Rosy Turner (HMT)

In AH: Liz Davis;

In DFID Vietnam : Donal Brown

Quarterly Management Report

1. Sam Sharpe introduced this item. He highlighted two changes to the QMR: i) the addition of management challenges; and ii) a restructuring of the managing relationships section. He said that DFID at the end of the year was in the right place both on programme spend and headcount. He highlighted that the programme based approach targets have not been met and that given changes in the definition of measurement, we are not on track to meet the HIV target within the planned timeframe.

2. The Board:

thanked the team for the report and welcomed the changes;

asked that the failure to meet the programme based approaches target be examined in more detail, and asked Africa Division to write an explanatory note to Management Board;

will discuss the HIV target in more detail at meeting with Ministers of 19 April;

were pleased with portfolio performance, and with the reduction in numbers of projects. Commended work by regional teams and Directors;

asked that FCPD develop a better understanding of the difference in the scoring of high-risk projects between divisions and provide more explanatory detail around tables/graphs;

asked FCPD to provide for Management Board more information about the Administration Costs outturn for 2006/7, once the adjustments arising from departments’ year-end returns had been made;

emphasised that it was essential that over the next 6 weeks DFID focuses on achieving the IIP accreditation;

asked FCPD to explore again with Communications Division the concept of relationship managers with key partners and whether DFID needs them;

recommended that FCPD revisit judgements in the corporate risk register table on page 31 about the current situation.

Public Service Agreements (PSAs) and Departmental Strategic Objectives (DSOs)

3. Sam Sharpe introduced this item. He summarised two potential options for DFID’s future PSAs – one based around the MDGs, the second based around White Paper themes emphasising the breadth of DFID’s work as a development agency. He introduced a draft of potential DSOs and updated the Board on discussions over shared PSAs. He mentioned the instructions from HMT that we: reduce the number of indicators; assure indicators are attributable to DFID’s work; and structure the indicators carefully so that we can demonstrate progress towards them in the given timeframe. He noted that DFID’s commitment to outcome indicators meant that we would not meet the Treasury suggestion that we use indicators where progress is attributable solely to DFID.

4. The Board:

opted for Option One that PSAs should focus the indicator set on a sub set of the MDGs;

agreed that we should have an indicator on Global Partnerships. If numbers are limited this should be included at the expense of the indicator on Maternal Mortality;

agreed that indicators on governance were more appropriate at the DSO than PSA level;

agreed Option X that the PSA targets a broader number of countries;

endorsed the PSA Delivery Agreement in Annex A;

approved the draft DSOs subject to:

FCPD altering the title of objective 7;

the team ensures that when this is translated into a Performance Framework there is consistency with the Results Action Plan;

emphasised how important it was that we engaged with the development of the joint PSAs and that:

FCPD would draft a letter from Suma Chakrabarti to HMT stating that DFID would only sign up to outcome focussed PSAs;

FCPD would draft a letter from Suma Chakrabarti to FCO highlighting what we need them to do to help deliver DFID PSAs;

FCPD would ensure DFID is being proactive in ensuring OGDs are engaged in our PSAs which they are delivering.
Management Board Self Assessment

5. I introduced this item. I thanked Justin Williams for his work in preparing the documentation and outlined the recommendations he proposed for the future. During 2006/7 the Management Board has made good progress against its objectives. All of which were either largely or wholly achieved. Observer feedback was helpful and very welcome. The report outlines 8 recommended actions that will help improve the running of the Management Board.

6. The Board:

approved the annual Management Board Self Assessment;

agreed all eight of the actions in the paper. Asked the Board Secretary to follow up;

approved the future agenda subject to the Board Secretary reviewing it to ensure it reflects the recommendations that have been made in the meeting.

Management Board Sub Committees Self Assessment:

a) Development Committee

7. Mark Lowcock introduced this item. He highlighted that the Development Committee has made good progress in 2006/7, in particular on prioritisation and strengthening implementation. He said that attendance has also improved. High quality Secretariat support to the committee had been an asset.

8. The Board:

welcomed the improvements that have been made and thanked the committee for its work in achieving this;

agreed the TOR for the Development Committee;

was concerned that the elapsed time between concept note and finalisation of policy documents was too long; agreed that a unit cost should be included on all DFID policy documents.

b) Audit Committee

9. Bill Griffiths introduced this item. He said that during 2006/7 the external challenge function to the audit committee had been strengthened. He said that to fully comply with the last Audit Committee Handbook however the committee needed to go further in increasing independent membership.

10. The Board:

thanked the committee for a well written report;

agreed the proposed membership model A - a fully independent membership consisting of up to 5 non executives whose skills would cover risk management governance and control and financial management. In the interim it was agreed that two executive directors from regional departments should regularly participate in the Committee;

agreed the objectives for 2007/8, including the suggestion that the committee seeks to add value to the audit function, by strengthening focus on thematic issues and management responses.

c) Human Resources Committee

11. Sue Owen introduced this item highlighting that the HRC has made progress against its 20-06/7 objectives. She welcomed the work of Marcus Manuel’s team on the SAIC Paper and encouraged other non-HRD participation in such initiatives in the future. She welcomed the role of having a NED on the board to bring outside experience. She highlighted that at times attendance had been poor. Changes in the composition of the HRC may help improve this.

12. The Board:

welcomed and approved the new composition of the committee;

agreed the draft objectives and tentative work plan subject to i) ensuring that everything on the work plan needs to be agreed in committee rather than in line, and ii) that it includes areas from the MB forward programme that are more appropriately covered here.

d) SCS Committee

13. Sue Owen introduced this item. She updated on the changed Secretariat staffing. She suggested that currently this Committee entered into too detailed discussion and that it needed now with larger numbers of SCS to become more strategic.

14. The Board:

agreed that the SCS Committee would be renamed the Senior Civil Service Management and Pay Committee (SCSMPC);

agreed that the SCS Committee needed a more detailed forward agenda which batched jobs together and therefore making it more strategic;

suggested that a more formal method of recording and chasing follow-up actions was needed, eg an action matrix like used for the MB;

highlighted the importance of ensuring Bill Griffiths is kept informed and involved in the Committee’s programme, in particular on the pay side.

e) Overarching Governance Structures

15. In line with the action points in the Capability Review Implementation Plan the Board also discussed the structures and how well they worked together as a whole.

16. The Board:

agreed that the boundaries between and decision making powers of the Management Board and the different sub-committees are broadly clear;

suggested that all forward agendas should be revisited by Secretariats to ensure the items included are being discussed at the right level;

identified that security issues currently have no formal home within these structures. It was agreed that the Security Committee should no longer sit as a separate ad hoc entity, and that security issues should either be resolved in line or brought direct to the MB when necessary. It was also agreed that security would be reported on as part of the QMR at Management Board meetings;

suggested that HR Committee may want to consider altering its name;

agreed that secretariat support and the capacity to be able to chase actions and follow up was insufficient in a number of areas. This needs improving and possible standardising. I agreed as part of planning for separate Board Secretariat to revisit this and propose some solutions.

Lucy Livings - Management Board Secretary