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

DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings

Meeting on 21 and 28 September 2006

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

communicate the vision, role, direction and priorities of DFID to staff and other stakeholders;
ensure DFID's financial resources and staff are allocated and managed effectively;
monitor and improve DFID's performance;
protect and enhance DFID’s reputation as a highly effective international development organisation.

Meeting on 21 September 2006

Topic	Attending	Purpose	MB Obj	Papers
Resource Allocation Model	Tony Venables	To consider modifications to the resource allocation model	B, C & D	The Aid Allocation Model
Resource Allocation and Business Planning progress for annual DDP review	Richard Calvert Ken Grimshaw	To consider DDP review allocation of resources and implications of White Paper and CSR	A, B, C & D	Business Planning Process for 2007/08
Attendees	Suma Chakrabarti (Chair), Mark Lowcock, Minouche Shafik, Bill Griffith (Non-Executive Director), Sue Owen, Helen Ghosh (Non-Executive Director)

Observers

In PS: Sam Sharpe, Nick Highton, Siobhan Carey, Tamsyn Barton, Jane Shute, Ian Symons, Kevin Gardner, Clare Harris, Carl Kalapesi

In AH: Simon Gill, Pete Shelley

In DFID Caribbean: Sandra Pepara, Pat Holden

Resource Allocation Model

1. Tony Venables introduced this item. He summarised his recommendations:

i) the resource allocation model’s policy variable should be changed to the CPIA score squared;

ii) we should continue to use PPP rather than Atlas data for the poverty variable;

iii) the allocation should be based on 80% of funds following the UK allocation model (without compensation) and 20% being used to compensate under-aided countries and recognise other opportunities and risk factors;

iv) model results should be presented in a way that allows meaningful cross-country comparison and shows the contribution of the different component parts of the model.

2. The Board:

agreed recommendation (i), subject to a check that there are no variables in the CPIA which we would be uncomfortable using;

agreed recommendation (ii), whilst noting that the change in PPP numbers next year could lead to significant changes in the model. We should therefore avoid setting firm country allocations too early in the CSR process;

on recommendation (iii), decided that the model should not compensate for under-aiding by other donors, but instead be based instead on a 100% UK allocation model. Compensation for under-aiding should be considered as a major factor, alongside other factors, as part of the decision tree analysis. FCPD should introduce this change to the model between now and next year's DDP planning round;

agreed recommendation (iv), and agreed that the information on the model would be presented in the Departmental Report;

greed that ownership of the model should rest with FCPD, consulting GDED and the Chief Economist as appropriate.

Resource Allocation & Business Planning: progress for annual DDP review

3. Richard Calvert introduced this item, asking the Board to approve the overall approach and timetable for this year’s review.

4. The Board agreed the recommendations of the paper, subject to the following modifications:

there should be DDPs, at least in an outline format, for the two new divisions: Communications and Global Development Effectiveness;

the board would look again at future headcount trajectory in an upcoming Management Board meeting;

management Board and Ministerial discussions should have a significant focus on how far we are achieving MDGs, the PSA and DDP deliverables.

Meeting on 28 September 2006

10.00 -12.00 Location: PS 3W12- VC with AH501

Topic	Attending	Purpose	MB Obj	Papers
Update on communications strategy	Joy Hutcheon Mike Green	To update the board on DFID's communications strategy	A & D
Management Survey	Liz Davis	To review the Survey conclusions and agree any follow up action necessary	A, C & D
Restricted Headcount implications of Senior Management Review	Liz Davis	To discuss the human resource implications of the Senior Management Review	C & D
Restricted Comprehensive Spending Review 2007	Richard Calvert	To discuss DFID's strategy for the Comprehensive Spending Review	B, C & D
Attendees	Suma Chakrabarti (Chair), Mark Lowcock, Minouche Shafik, Bill Griffith (Non-Executive Director), Sue Owen, Helen Ghosh (Non-Executive Director)
Observers	In PS: Yolande Wright, Ian Symons, Keith MacKiggan, Aisha Zuberi, David Reid, Lynette Carrington, Lisa Harlow, Siobhan Carey, Hannah Weston In AH: Mel Charles

Communications Update

1. Joy Hutcheon introduced this item. She asked the board to:

comment on the Communications Strategy Update paper;

review the structure of the new Communications Division;

comment on the proposed new campaign themes for the next six months.

2. The Board:

commended the team on the rich update paper;

asked that Key Performance Indicators on Communications be included in future editions of the Quarterly Management Report;

asked that Communications Division develop an integrated approach to marketing DFID’s work, with different strategies for different target groups in the public;

liked the structure of the new Division, but asked the division to come back to individual members of the Management Board with more detail on the roles of the heads of sections;

agreed the campaign themes, subject to the following modifications:

the message on corruption should be widened to include a broader focus on governance;

the messages on post-conflict reconstruction should include our work in Sierra Leone and Rwanda, and focus less explicitly on Iraq;

on climate change, DFID should not conduct a separate campaign but should work with the Office of Climate Change.

Management Survey

3. Liz Davis introduced this item, asking the Board to endorse the report and the proposed approach for dealing with the three main challenges.

4. The Board:

commended the team for putting together the informative report;

congratulated DFID staff on the excellent response rate and very good results;

noted the highly positive comparisons with other Government departments;

on the three areas where we need to do most work, asked for:

(a) tougher action – for example more prescription about requirements for induction (whilst recognising the differences between inductions for people who are new to DFID and those who are moving within DFID);

(b) greater clarity on what would be required in order to achieve a more positive response, especially on tackling poor performance;

asked HR Division to report back to Minouche Shafik (Diversity Champion) with further analysis on areas in the survey with a large gender gap – i.e. where women responded more negatively than men;

asked Director-Generals to take the survey’s conclusions forward through discussions with their respective Directors.

Headcount Implications of the Senior Management Review (Closed Session)

5. Liz Davis introduced this item.

6. The Board:

thanked the team for the paper;

asked for the data to be updated to take account of staff appointed in country and presented to a stocktake meeting of the executive members of the Management Board;

asked that, after the stocktake meeting, final recommendations are presented to the next Management Board meeting as part of the paper on the Business Planning Process.

Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 (Closed Session)

7. Richard Calvert introduced this item.

8. The Board:

agreed the proposed scale of value for money gains on programme expenditure;

asked FCPD to build up a case for the efficiency of allocating through the European Development Fund;

asked the HR director to present to a stocktake meeting of the executive members of the Management Board on the future shape of HR Division;

agreed that outsourcing research could still be considered on effectiveness grounds, even if it did not generate efficiency gains;

asked FCPD to present a scenario to the Treasury on how we would manage a 5% real cut in administration resources, whilst highlighting the potential problems of this approach and showing how we could perform better by reinvesting these savings in other areas.