Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Department for International Development
Question 92 (Mr Ian Davidson):
Social and educational backgrounds of DfID staff
DFID does not have information on the social,
economic and class background of its staff. The Department does
not consider that there are any well defined measures of how to
determine these specifically in terms of whether staff have a
"privileged" background.
DFID does not store systematic data relating
to the type of establishment from where qualifications were awarded
or schools attended. Nor is this information considered as part
of the selection process for new staff.
DFID is committed to appointing the staff with
the right skills and competences mix, to ensure delivery of development
assistance to those who need it most, regardless of the social,
economic, gender, ethnic background etc of such staff. Recruitment
procedures reflect this commitment and apply to both the UK Home
Civil Service (HCS) and overseas Staff Appointed in Country (SAIC).
DFID considers recruitment of people with the
correct mix of qualifications, competencies, skills, attitude
and motivation, to be critical to successful delivery of its business.
The advertising and application processes clearly set out the
minimum requirements for each role and the initial sifting process
ensures that all candidates meet at least these requirements.
Where specific qualifications are required only those with these
qualifications will be further considered for selection.
DFID has used assessment centres for recruitment
since the early 1990s. Their use has extended in recent years
to cover both professional and general administrative and executive
appointments at all levels in the organisation. They are intended
to ensure that a comprehensive assessment of any job related skills
and competencies are made prior to employment. This includes an
analysis of an individual's focus on, and understanding of, development
issues. Decisions are based upon all of the information gained
and are assessed against transparent job related criteria.
The Department is a very diverse organisation,
exceeding or performing well against Civil Service diversity targets
and as measured against the diversity composition of the UK population
as a whole. Diversity is valued for both HCS and SAIC staff. Diversity
statistics for HCS staff are presented in the following table.
DIVERSITY STATISTICS
Ethnicity, Gender and Disability (of HCS headcount
staff—as at end December 2007)
| Grade | % Ethnic Minorities
| % White | % Unknown
| % Total | % Male
| % Female | % Disabled
| % Non Disabled |
| SCS* | 11.7% | 70.5%
| 18.8% | 100% | 63%
| 37% | 2% | 98%
|
| Band A | 8% | 71%
| 21% | 100% | 54%
| 46% | 2% | 98%
|
| Band B | 12% | 71%
| 17% | 100% | 47%
| 53% | 4% | 96%
|
| Band C | 14% | 68%
| 18% | 100% | 35%
| 65% | 8% | 92%
|
| Total | 10% | 71%
| 19% | 100% | 50%
| 50% | 3% | 97%
|
* For the purposes of Diversity, SCS numbers are measured
using the Office for National Statistics/Cabinet Office definitions.
Question 129 (Mr Austin Mitchell): Proportion of the aid budget
of other countries that is devoted to budget support and what
is the proportion of EU aid that is devoted to budget support
The Paris Declaration Monitoring Survey provides useful information
about the volume of budget support provided by different donors.
This is the source of data referred to in the NAO report, paragraph
1.10.
The Survey includes information from 34 aid recipient countries
including 15 of DFID's PSA countries, and 11 of the countries
where DFID delivers budget support. 1 It provides information
about amount of general budget support delivered in the recipient
government financial year ending in 2005.
Budget support as a % of total aid is calculated using information
collected in the same survey about "total aid disbursed".
This refers to total aid disbursed in those 34 countries, rather
than total aid disbursed by each agency across their whole portfolio.
| Organisation | Budget Support
| Total aid disbursed | Budget support as % total aid disbursed
|
| (US$ millions) |
(US$ millions) | |
| European Commission | 702 |
2,577 | 27% |
| EU Member States | |
| |
| Belgium | 16 | 192
| 8% |
| Denmark | 101 | 617
| 16% |
| France | 85 | 490
| 17% |
| Germany | 62 | 1,082
| 6% |
| Ireland | 79 | 176
| 45% |
| Italy | 8 | 155
| 5% |
| Netherlands | 194 | 733
| 27% |
| Spain | 20 | 287
| 7% |
| Sweden | 140 | 605
| 23% |
| UK | 617 | 1,512
| 41% |
| Other | |
| |
| African Development Bank | 214
| 638 | 34% |
| Andean Development Bank | 28
| 198 | 14% |
| Asian Development Bank | 141
| 693 | 20% |
| Canada | 111 | 495
| 20% |
| Global Fund | 0 | 441
| 0 |
| IDB | 24 | 323
| 7% |
| India | 0 | 198
| 0 |
| Japan | 88 | 1,612
| 5% |
| Norway | 73 | 409
| 18% |
| Switzerland | 37 | 220
| 17% |
| United Nations | 14 | 1,620
| 1% |
| United States | 110 | 2,835
| 4% |
| World Bank | 1,810 | 5,228
| 35% |
| Other donors | 39 | 722
| 5% |
| Total | 4,714
| 24,057 | |
1 Countries where DFID delivers budget support that are not included
in the survey are India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sierra Leone.
| 
