DFID Management Board
Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - September 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 Obj |
Resource Allocation Round |
Richard Calvert, Simon Gill |
To consider proposed handling of resources allocating issues |
B, C and D |
Attendees: |
Suma Chakrabarti, Mark Lowcock, Minouche Shafik, Masood Ahmed |
||
Apologies |
Bill Griffiths |
||
Observing |
Closed session - no observers |
||
Resource Allocation Round
1. Richard Calvert outlined the proposals for divisional ceilings in the Resource Allocation Round for 2005/06-2007/08. Following the Board's endorsement, the figures would be presented to Ministers for approval and used as the basis for Director Delivery Plans.
2. In discussion, the Board made the following points: a. the 2004 Spending Review had been a very good outcome for DFID. There was an unprecedented period of growth between 2005/06 and 2007/08, and decisions would be taken in this context.
3. In conclusion, the Board:
a. thanked Richard Calvert and FCPD for the helpful paper. The figures were becoming clearer;
b. confirmed it was broadly content with the proposals for programme resources;
c. agreed that it would be important to retain flexibility in the programme resources contingency allocation, to allow for any necessary adjustment in spending plans as priorities were clarified;
d. noted that the size and timing of DFID's contribution to IDA may have some spending consequences for other programmes, and may need to be considered further when this had been agreed;
e. agreed that the paper needed to clarify the distinction between what scored as bilateral and what as multilateral funding for Africa Division;
f. confirmed that the proposals for administration costs and allocation presented a good starting point and set the right direction;
g. agreed further work was needed to validate the baseline headcount figures and to consider the implications of closing MIC programmes on headcount and administration costs;
h. noted the need to ensure that the growth in International Division's budget and headcount accurately reflected the workload undertaken by the PCRU from EMA, since this was slightly unclear at this stage; i. requested that the headcount ceilings (outlined in Annex 4) be revised in one month's time in line with the Board's comments;
j. confirmed that it was content with the proposals for administration capital;
k. confirmed that the DDP process should be as light touch as possible. The commissioning minute should reflect this. The DDPs should build on recent progress by being short and even more tightly focused on key targets and performance data. The Board would want to see less prose, and more data (headcount, programme figures etc). Directors should state explicitly what their needs for Catalyst would be. At a later stage, DDPs should also incorporate SLAs.
l. ISSD's DDP would be handled in the same way as EvD, with the review to be undertaken by Mark Lowcock and selected Directors.
