DFID Management Board
Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - February 2004
In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement and Service Delivery 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.
Topic |
Attending |
Purpose |
MB Objective |
Papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Quarterly Management Report |
Sue Wardell Gail Marzetti Dave Fish Ian McKendry |
To assess process in DFID's programme expenditure, IT, HR and risk assessment |
B, C and D |
Quarterly Management Report |
Annual Diversity Report |
Dave Fish Ian McKendry Angela Beven |
To update the Board on the annual summary, to complement the diversity data in the QMR |
B |
Anual Diversity Report Anexes A, B, C, D, E |
Quarterly Management Report
1. Sue Wardell introduced the Quarterly Management Report (QMR) for the First Quarter 2004. Headline messages had been drawn from the data to assist the Management Board in considering implications of performance in one area of business for delivery in another, and management responses proposed. Work was progressing on developing a "balanced score card" QMR which would contribute even more in each of these respects.
2. The Board thanked Sue and her team - the QMR was continually improving, and would be even more useful as a tool for not only the Board, but other staff too, in the future.
Delivery
3. In discussion the following point was made:
a) the Autumn Performance Report had shown that DFID was off-track on 4 out of 28 PSA indicators. Directors were already following up on action agreed at Management Board discussions of Directors Delivery Plans.
Finance
4. In conclusion the Board agreed the following:
a) the Board congratulated Regional Divisions on their highest ever level of Prism scoring compliance (96%), although that for Policy and International Divisions was only 83%. Masood Ahmed would follow up with those departments in which compliance was lower;
b) the Board was concerned at the downward trend in VFM scores, and the variations in portfolio scoring quality. PED and EvD should examine variations between regional scoring and recommend corrective action, as well as the robustness and applicability of data, and how to make the best use of this data;
c) the Board congratulated Finance and Regional Divisions on provisionally meeting the ODA/GNI 0.33% target for 2003. Finance Division would continue to be vigilant to ensure that DFID did not go too far and overspend;
d) the Board was concerned that the further increase in the suspense balance to £220m, and in the percentage of items over 12 months old at 19% compared to 10% in June 2003 was making it much more difficult to pick up fraud. Finance Division should produce a table of departments with the highest suspense figures, to allow DGs to push those Directors to reduce their figures;
e) Finance Department should set a date for the data to be presented on an accruals basis. The next QMR should contain pipeline figures on HIV/AIDS, and show DFID's back/front office ratio.
Human Resources
5. In discussion the following points were made:
a) the Board was worried about continued growth in numbers (DFID's Home Civil Service staff grew by 12% last year). It was also noticeable that despite the number of inward secondments being up, it was still half that of outward secondments. The Board was surprised by the fact that over 50% of DFID's staff were in UK despite decentralisation, and requested more disaggregated information;
b) gross staff turnover rate was 6.8% in 1PS, 2.8% in AH and 3.8% in HCS staff overseas, which were all very low. In an organisation undergoing change a higher turnover would be desirable, if vacancy management allowed it. The Board was interested in how these staff flows were affecting the current staff profile - were we, for example, losing key skills, or was the average skill level increasing?
c) the Board would consider a strategy for managing current vacancies at the following day's awayday with Directors and Chief Advisers. DGs would encourage Directors to ensure critical delivery posts were filled by redeployment within Divisions, recognising constraints on this in the Regional Divisions. Soon after Easter HROD would be publicising the changes arising from the HRC discussion of the Postings and Promotion review and this would include a description of the flexibility to be given to Directors to fill posts for up to twelve months.
Business Continuity Plans
6. In conclusion the Board agreed the following:
a) the Board congratulated Regional and Service Divisions on their good progress in putting an additional 23 plans in place for overseas offices and the remaining plans either nearing finalisation or covered by FCO Compliance. The main reason for this had been explaining clearly how these would help DFID achieve its mission. But these were live documents and needed to be kept so. Director Information to update the Board on the timeframe for updating plans.
Annual Diversity Report
7. Dave Fish highlighted the encouraging picture presented by this Annual Diversity Report (ADR):
a) DFID's Management Survey, 360-degree feedback and Investors in People mini reviews all reflected positive diversity progress. Many staff believed that they had equal access to development opportunities irrespective of their age, gender, ethnicity or role; and that gatherings such as weekly meetings and retreats were now more inclusive. Staff appreciated the variety of working patterns available and other family friendly policies. But DFID needed to improve some behavioural skills to allow more inclusive management styles;
b) SCS targets on diversity had shown good progress on both gender and ethnic minorities although performance on disability was disappointing. DFID's new promotion arrangements had so far delivered very encouraging results, particularly in respect of ethnic minority staff and women, but needed to be kept under view. DFID had already, and for the first time, equality proofed its recruitment process;
c) DFID carried out its first equal pay audit (for non-SCS staff) in 2003. This found no evidence of significant pay gaps for Home Civil Servants. The design of the 2001 multi-year pay deal had helped to equalise differences in pay within a realistic timeframe;
d) DFID's Staff Appointed In Country (SAIC) now had significantly better career opportunities, with a substantial number of Band A posts (DFID had none in 1997). The number of B band posts had also been greatly increased. In the last year Development Attachments in the UK had been offered to SAIC who otherwise could not obtain work permits to get UK experience. The attachments were successful and, following a review of experience to date, DFID now planed a greater number of diversity-friendly shorter attachments relating directly to individual development needs;
e) the Management Board's own diversity profile had changed dramatically in recent years. It was now smaller and more varied across gender, ethnic and age groups;
f) Kamaljit Kerridge-Poonia had joined DFID as the Diversity Adviser in October 2003. Much of her work supported the Diversity Champion's agenda. She will work to address issues of culture change and service delivery;
g) the ADR Executive Summary very usefully described the breadth of diversity work in DFID.
8. The Board welcomed the positive developments, but was very concerned about DFID's figures on disability, which were much worse than those across the Civil Service. The following points were made in connection to that issue:
a) Kamaljit will be developing a diversity strategy and will particularly focus on disability. There seemed to be problems in DFID both with the recruitment of disabled people and with staff willingness to classify themselves as disabled;
b) DFID would work closely with organisations representing disabled people, with other Government Departments and with other comparative organisations. DFID was a member of the Cabinet Office Disability Working Group, which was proving very useful. There seemed to be a greater culture of openness and a willingness to stand out in other organisations. The FCO had some good examples of efforts to make 'reasonable adjustments' for staff with disabilities who wanted to work overseas;
c) It would be important that staff were aware that the Board was very keen to increase fully integrated opportunities for disabled people in DFID, interested to meet disabled new staff, and to utilize fully suggestions from existing staff with disabilities;
d) refurbishment of DFID offices included consideration of an appropriate physical environment for disabled people. But in some locations feedback loops had taken a long time coming - this should be given high priority. Access was still a problem in some parts of 1 Palace Street.
9. On other diversity issues, the following points were made:
a) the DFID diversity strategy, which the GAGD was working on, should describe what a more diverse DFID would look like, why we wanted to see this, and what DFID was going to do to bring it about. It would be important to create a culture of openness, and to develop inclusive managers;
b) there had been no backlash on diversity. Staff understood that DFID was aiming to achieve the central Government diversity targets without compromising on staff quality;
c) DFID had probably the lowest SCS turnover rate in Whitehall, which made change difficult.
10. In conclusion the Board agreed that:
a) This was a very useful report, for which HR should be congratulated. Next year's ADR should be much shorter and include information on changing underlying behaviour. Before then, HR should bring to the Board analysis about why some women in the SCS-feeder grades were not putting themselves forward for promotion, even though a higher proportion of women who did go for promotion were successful (than male candidates);
b) the planned diversity-awareness raising seminars, and attendant Monday Morning Meeting discussion and Insider article would be very useful;
c) it was a high priority to improve DFID's performance on diversity targets, particularly those on disability;
d) All Board members would take responsibility concerning diversity. The role of DFID's Diversity Champion, initiated with Suma and held most recently by Nicola, would move to Mark.
