4 Delivering more aid effectively
with fewer staff
19. Across its network of country offices since
2004 the Department has faced the challenge of disbursing steeply
rising amounts of aid with fewer staff to oversee it, as a result
of cuts in its administration budget set by the Treasury.[56]
The Department is planning to cut its total administration expenditure
by £8.9 million between 2008-09 and 2010-11, largely through
an £8 million reduction in staff costs.[57]
The Treasury attempted to defend this position claiming that whilst
it has reduced the Department's administrative resources, it is
for the Department to make the necessary judgements as to where
to make cuts. The Department in Malawi will know better than the
Treasury in London, a telling admission on their part.[58]
The Treasury has ring-fenced some resources for the Department's
front-line administration costs overseas which they did not reduce
at the same rate.[59]
Overall, the Department contends that though struggling with the
cost pressures it is coping pretty well. But other organisations
perceive that staffing constraints have meant that the Department
does not do the job as well as they think it should.[60]
It also means that the Department has to rely more on weak local
systems of assessment rather than on its own staff who would be
better placed to account for the use made of public money.
20. The Department's Malawi programme costs some
£2.6 million to run in order to monitor £80 million
of UK spending. Staff numbers have been cut from over 100 in 2004
to under 40 now, by better matching of staff to the nature of
the programme and transferring project delivery work and staff
to the Government of Malawi. The Department staff in Malawi questioned
in an NAO survey whether current staffing is sufficient, and the
implications of further reductions on management of the programme.
The management of the Department's programme in Malawi told us
they have the team to achieve what they need to.[61]
The Department partly attributes the results of the NAO survey
to a period of change in late 2008 when staff were demoralised,[62]
but the NAO finding is consistent with wider surveys carried out
by the Department indicating strain on staff and that people feel
overloaded.[63]
56 Q 11 Back
57
The Department Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2008-09,
Volume 1, p 69, Table 6 Back
58
Qq 11-16 Back
59
Q 86 Back
60
Q 76; Evidence to the Select Committee on International Development,
24 November 2009 Back
61
Q 76 Back
62
Qq 87-90; C&AG's Report, para 1.12 and 1.13 Back
63
The Department's Evidence to the Select Committee on International
Development, 24 November 2009 Back
| 
