International DevelopmentFurther written evidence submitted by DFID

Questions and DFID Responses for IDC Afghanistan Inquiry

What is the number of DFID Afghanistan staff (national and international) divided by location Kabul/Helmand/London by year since 2002?

	Kabul	Helmand	London
2007	24 Home Civil Service (HCS) 17 Staff Appointed in Country (SAIC)	Nil	4 HCS
2008	27 HCS 18 SAIC	Nil	4 HCS
2009	25 HCS 20 SAIC	2.5 HCS 1 SAIC	6 HCS
2010*	27 HCS 20 SAIC	2.5 HCS 1 SAIC	6 HCS
2011	28 HCS 25 SAIC	5 HCS 1 SAIC	Nil
2012	33 HCS 34 SAIC	6 HCS 2 SAIC	2.5 HCS

Data is not available for the years before 2007.

* The Secretary of State announced a 40% uplift in UK Aid to Afghanistan in June 2010.

What is DFID’s staffing policy for postings in Afghanistan? (eg length of tour/language requirements/training)

DFID Afghanistan staff in Kabul work in post for one year minimum with the potential to extend by up to a further year. In Helmand staff work a minimum of six months with the possibility of extending. It is a forced unaccompanied posting—no dependents are permitted in post. The same policies apply for FCO staff.

Staff work a five day working week in Kabul, and a six day working week in Helmand, although weekend working is a regular occurrence in both locations. Both locations work six weeks in country followed by a two week “Breather Break” (plus 1.5 travel days for Kabul and 3.5 for Helmand). Other international organisations operate similar systems. Cover is provided by SAIC (Staff Appointed in Country—national staff) in HCS (Home Civil Service) staff absences, as well as by HCS colleagues.

During breather breaks HCS staff are provided with fully flexible economy travel for Kabul staff and restricted business class for Helmand staff.

Allowances—The new “Conflict Zone Allowance” (CZA) was introduced from 1 April 2012 and amounts to £35,100 per annum for Kabul and £37,500 per annum for Helmand irrespective of grade. Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) ceased on 1 April 2012. Canteen food is provided as part of the CZA package.

Pre-Posting Requirements—HCS staff are required to complete SAFE (hostile environment) training and Personal Awareness Training (PAT) before taking up their posting in Afghanistan. Language training is not a pre-posting requirement, but is available to staff in country.

Security—DFID staff fall under FCO Duty of Care arrangements, which include provision of hard cover secure accommodation, close protection and armoured transport.

Postal Allowance—Staff in Afghanistan enjoy a generous and flexible British Forces Post Office (BFPO) allowance with wider categories of permitted goods (in line with the military entitlement) including food, gels and liquids.

Flexible travel and leave package—Staff posted to Afghanistan have the same flexible travel entitlements as other DFID overseas offices, but staff in DFID Afghanistan has an additional 60 days after leaving post to utilise their full entitlement. Annual leave accrues while at post and is then taken at the end of the posting as “decompression leave” (usually two to three months depending on the length of service).

Have there been any staff policy changes since the last IDC inquiry in 2008?

Allowances—there have been significant changes in the Hardship Allowance for those contracted after 1 July 2010—reduced from £38,792 to £19,396 in Kabul and from £44,648 down to £22,324 in Helmand. The Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) remained unchanged. There were further changes in April 2012 when the Hardship Allowance was replaced by Conflict Zone Allowance (CZA)—£35,100 per annum for Kabul and £37,500 per annum. COLA allowances also ceased in April 2012. All meals have been provided to staff free of charge since August 2011.

Flexi Travel—in April 2012, DFID agreed that staff posted to Afghanistan could utilise their flexible travel package for up to 60 days following departure from post (entitlement usually stops as soon as staff return to UK but it was recognised that most staff leaving Afghanistan would prefer to go back to UK to see their families first and then utilise any remaining flexi travel).

Class of travel for Breather Breaks was reduced from business class to fully flexible economy in July 2010.

What is the pay of local staff and what is the retention rate of local staff in country?

SAIC staff pay rates are included in full for each grade in Annex A.

Five SAIC staff have left DFID Afghanistan during 2010–11 and 2011–12, out of a total of 35 SAIC staff employed with DFID in Afghanistan over this time. Over the past 10 years, only 28 SAIC staff have left in total.

What is the cost of consultants if it is possible to disaggregate from general project spends?

DFID’s spend on consultancy contracts in Afghanistan was £96,101.35 in 2010–11.

From 2010–11 DFID consultancy contracts are categorised in line with the Office of Government Commerce’s (OGC) definition of consultancy. To ensure a consistent and effective approach to Consultancy for the delivery of Value for Money, the OGC provided a specific definition that must be applied across government. Prior to the definition being implemented in 2010–11 DFID did not record details of consultancy contracts separately and we are therefore unable to disaggregate this type of expenditure from the rest of supplier services.

ActionAid claims that $90 million—a three-fold increase—is required to be spent on women in Afghanistan through the implementation of the National Action Plan for Women (NAPWA). What is DFID’s analysis of this?

DFID staff have asked ActionAid to provide a detailed breakdown of how the $90 million they say is required for effective implementation of the NAPWA would be spent for the benefit of women in Afghanistan. To date, they have not been able to provide this detail. We look forward to receiving this breakdown—until then it is not possible for us to determine whether the $90 million requested represents a good deal for Afghan women or the UK taxpayer.

The Government response to the IDC 2008 report said that DFID would develop a 2008–11 Operational Plan with clear gender empowerment in programmes. Please can you give us examples of these along with DFID’s assessment of their impact? (response to para 19)

Previous Operational Plans were reviewed in line with the new Corporate Spending Round. Gender is a cross-cutting theme in all our programmes. As such, the Operational Plan 2011–15 does not specify programmes on gender empowerment. However, DFID will contribute to 5,422,671 children attending primary school in 2013–14 (of which 2,169,068 will be girls).

As part of the annual review of the Operational Plan carried out earlier this year, we have included a gender annex which sets out our objectives for the promotion of gender issues within our programme.

DFID uses the UK National Action Plan (NAP) for UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace & Security to guide its work on gender in Afghanistan. All programmes contributing to UK NAP objectives are detailed in the Plan with results identified and updated annually. The UK NAP on UNSCR 1325 is available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/women-peace-security/national-action-plan

DFID Afghanistan is currently conducting a gender mapping exercise to identify additional projects in its existing portfolio with high gender potential.

The Government also said in response to the Committee’s 2008 recommendation that there should be more women police officers (para 93) that EUPOL had an action plan on gender issues. Does DFID have an update on the success and impact of the action plan? What has the increase been in women police officers and in how male police officers work with woman in their communities?

The mainstreaming of gender issues within the Ministry of the Interior(MoI) and Afghan National Police (ANP) is one of EUPOL’s strategic objectives. Activities include delivering courses specifically for women, facilitating a female ANP network, mentoring staff in the MoI’s Gender and Human Rights Department, and ensuring these issues are included in the ANP’s leadership training curriculum. This work has raised the profile and capability of female ANP.

As of July 2012 there were over 1,400 female ANP (target 5,000, by 2015), representing almost 1% of the total force. Due to the conservative nature of Afghan society the rate of progress is slow, with women having ill-defined responsibilities, given menial tasks, and having few dedicated facilities including sanitation, changing rooms and so on. EUPOL is focusing on ensuring female ANP are working in areas where they are able to make the biggest contribution, including for example Family Response Units and female searches.

How much money has DFID provided to the ARTF annually since its inception?

The UK has provided assistance to the World Bank-administered ARTF since its inception in 2002 and was until 2010 the biggest donor in terms of cumulative payments. ARTF payments (and commitments) made by all donors, up to 2012, total US$6.10 billion. The total UK contribution to the ARTF is £602.6 million (or US$1128.22 million) up to 2012–13, averaging £54.78 million per year since inception.

DFID is committed to contributing up to a maximum of £300 million from 2011 until 2014 to the ARTF.

On an annual basis, how has this DFID money been distributed across the various sectors that the ARTF supports (ie education, rural development and agriculture)?

It is notionally difficult and misleading to extrapolate sector spending on an annual basis because projects and programmes run in-between financial years. The best way to quantify spending by sector is to do it by cumulative spending and commitments from the inception of the ARTF up to now. As of June 2012, based on the total amount of money spent or committed for ARTF projects, $ 2.17 billion USD has gone into the Investment Window, which provides funding for development projects rather than recurrent costs such as public sector salaries. Applying DFID’s approach of keeping ARTF funding unpreferenced, the UK spend in the different sectors reflects the proportion of ARTF spend in the various sectors. The contributions through the investment window can be split into the following sectors:

Agriculture—2.4%.

Human development—12.5%.

Rural livelihoods—49.1%.

Infrastructure—14.8%.

Job creation and microfinance—10.2%.

Public sector capacity-building and governance—11%.

A further $2.76 billion has been spent (or committed) through the Recurrent Window which provides funding to help the Afghan Government pay salaries and “operation & maintenance” costs incurred in providing essential services. The breakdown of such expenditure in sectoral terms follows Afghan Government budget priorities.

The Tokyo outcome documents mention a review of the ARTF in the context of transition. Has this review been conducted? Can we see the results, or can you summarize the outcomes?

The key findings from the draft report (entitled “ARTF at a crossroads: history and the future”) show that international assistance being used to help the Government of Afghanistan meet its recurrent and development costs, such as public servants’ salaries and maintenance costs of schools and clinics, is performing well but there is room for improvement. Specific recommendations and a plan of action will be agreed by the ARTF Strategy Group, made up of key donors including the UK and the Government of Afghanistan. This work is expected to be finalised by late 2012 and will be made available to the public.

In the years ahead we look forward to working closely with the World Bank, the Government of Afghanistan and international partners to improve the governance of the Fund, including closing down any remaining opportunities for corruption, developing the capacity of the Afghan Government to better manage funds themselves, and ensuring that the fund is delivering maximum benefits for women and girls by helping to improve its gender strategy.

The 2011–15 Operational Plan says “The UK has a 10-year Development Partnership Arrangement with the Government of Afghanistan (signed in 2005) which sets out our shared commitments for deliverables around poverty reduction and aid effectiveness. We plan to refresh this document in 2012”. Has this document been published yet? If not when will it be published and can the Committee see it?

The UK’s Development Partnership Agreement with the Government of Afghanistan was signed in 2005. At that time the UK Government decided not to publish it (the Committee can see the DPA). On 28 January 2012 the UK agreed an Enduring Strategic Partnership Document with Afghanistan that was published on 9 February 2012. The ESPD includes general commitments on development. As the Committee notes, plans are in place to refresh the DPA later this year.

The plan quotes “the first six months of 2011 saw an increase in civilian casualties in over the same period in 2010.” Are there more recent figures?

The latest UNAMA report on civilian casualties, published on 8 August 2012, says that between 1 January and 30 June 2012, conflict related violence resulted in 3,099 civilian casualties—1,145 civilians killed and 1,954 injured—a 15% decrease in overall civilian casualties compared with the same period in 2011. Of the 3,099 civilians killed or wounded, 925 were women or children representing 30% of all civilian casualties. Anti-Government elements were responsible for 80% of civilian casualties. Pro-Government forces were responsible for 10% of the total number of civilian casualties, reflecting a 25 % reduction compared with the same period in 2011. 10% could not be attributed to any party to the conflict.

Is it possible to provide an overview of the amount of funding devoted to the Conflict Pool and what sectors it has been spent on?

The table below shows the Afghanistan Conflict Pool budget by financial year. (The Afghanistan programme recently returned £8 million of its £69.4 million allocation for FY 12/13 to the centre).

FY 11/12	FY 12/13	FY 13/14	FY 14/15
£68.5m	£69.4m	£53.9m	£37.1m

Sector	FY 11/12 spend (£m)
Urban development	25.0
Agriculture	1.0
Governance	6.3
Culture	1.4
Justice	22.8
Security	3.0
ODA unclassified	0.9
Non-ODA	7.9
Total	68.5

What is the current state of the NPPs? How many have been endorsed and have any started to be implemented?

Of the 22 NPPs, 16 have been endorsed in full by the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board, two have been endorsed in principle and four are yet to be endorsed. The Government of Afghanistan is yet to confirm how many are under implementation, although some NPPs contain existing programmes which have been under implementation for some time (eg the National Solidarity Programme)

Which NPPs is DFID planning to support?

DFID’s Operational Plan 2011–15 sets out its priority areas for engagement. DFID’s projects and programmes support 14 of the planned 22 NPPs. As the Operational Plan runs up to 2015 we expect that DFID’s work will continue to cover the same number of NPPs during this period.

DFID’s submission said it was on track to align 80% of programming with NPPs by July 2012. Has this happened?

Yes—an analysis of DFID’s programming for end of FY 11/12, reported to and agreed by the Afghan Ministry of Finance, showed that 96% of DFID funding was judged to be aligned with the priorities and activities set out in the NPPs.

The DFID response to ICAI says “A DFID Task Team will visit Kabul by end April to develop an Action Plan to further reduce the risk of leakage or fraud. DFIDA is already considering the use of third party verification and continuous audit. Specific responsibilities and resourcing needs will subsequently need to be agreed, including with DFID central departments. (Action Plan agreed and under implementation by June 2012.) DFIDA will develop a new portfolio management tool to monitor and manage risks and results; and add a risk on partner financial systems to its existing risk register. (June 2012)”. Have both of these actions happened (the development of an action plan and portfolio management tool)? Have there been any other responses to ICAI or follow up actions that DFID would like to share with the Committee?

The DFID Task Team visited Kabul in April as planned. Its action plan is being implemented. The portfolio assessment tool has been developed and is now embedded as a key tool for portfolio risk assessment. It is reviewed regularly at the quarterly programme board. For each project it assesses both fiduciary and delivery risk and assesses this against the performance of the project.

A six month update on progress about the commitments made to ICAI in our management response is due for publication in mid-September.

ICAI’s report says that “ELECT is likely to continue into 2012 and beyond as ELECT-II, with DFID participation. Programme documents are currently being prepared.” What is DFID planning to give to ELECT II? Will it cover both the 2014 and 2015 elections? The current DFID budget on website is for Afghanistan Elections 2009–11 [114474] £7,000,000.

DFID support to ELECT-II has just been approved. We will contribute £12 million through the UNDP-managed pooled donor fund from November 2012 to December 2013. This support (which builds on ICAI’s Evaluation of DFID’s electoral support) seeks to strengthen Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission’s (IEC) capacity to conduct the 2014–15 elections with reduced external assistance. Areas include:

(i)setting up a new and sustainable voter registration system;

(ii)building skills of IEC Officials at both central and provincial levels;

(iii)construction of IEC provincial offices; and

(iv)early voter outreach especially to women and other marginalized groups.

A pipeline of an additional £3m has been set aside to support the elections, if required.

The response to the IDC report in 2008 said that DFID would be increasing funding to the Afghan justice system through the Justice Reform Project. Please could DFID update the Committee on the project and its impacts?

DFID provides support to the Justice Reform Project through the ARTF. The UK’s (and other donors) support to the Justice Reform Programme has aided harmonisation of reform in the justice sector and helped the Afghan Government to operationalise its justice sector strategy. The project is being implemented by the three justice institutions: the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and the Supreme Court (SC). While this has been a broadly positive development, the sector continues to face major challenges and the project has been slow to implement. There are plans for a second phase of the Justice Reform Project, which would extend the scope of the programme to include the informal sector, improving access to justice by ordinary Afghans.

Note: DFID has not increased its funding on Justice programmes as the FCO now lead on this issue. However, we do provide support to the Justice Reform Project.

The 2008 inquiry reported concerns that CDCs had not been formalised. DFID responded that it was under discussion with the Afghan Government. Please could DFID update on the progress on this

Formal discussions on the status of CDCs are on-going, and part of wider discussions on sub-national governance including district representation. The World Bank, in collaboration with the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, has commissioned three studies related to the sustainability of CDCs, including a study on how CDCs could be transitioned to village councils. The UK and other donors are working closely with the Afghan Government and the World Bank on this issue.

The 2008 inquiry recommended that there was a need to increase microfinancing in rural areas especially for women—DFID responded that it would give more to Afghan Govt Microfinance facility. Please could DFID update on this and its microfinancing work in Afghanistan

The Microfinance Investment Support Facility for Afghanistan (MISFA) was set up in 2003 as a vehicle for donor funding of microfinance. DFID provided an additional £17 million to MISFA in 2008–09 through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), taking its contribution to a total of £40 million. A Project Completion Report (PCR) conducted by DFID staff from outside Afghanistan in February 2010 concluded that MISFA was sufficiently funded for the foreseeable future, and that the organisation should concentrate on consolidation and improvements to its lending portfolio, rather than expanding it.

MISFA has reported disbursing US$1 billion in microfinance loans and in August 2012 has a gross loan portfolio of approximately US$105 million. MISFA reports that 64% of its borrowers are women. There has been significant consolidation in the microfinance industry in the past few years. This was largely due to the number of microfinance institutions (MFIs), and the security constraints of setting up and monitoring portfolios. As a consequence, through consolidation and exit MISFA currently supports seven MFIs (down from 16) and MISFA has reported that it will not require additional funding for the next two years.

In addition, through the ARTF, DFID supports the Afghanistan Rural Enterprise Development Programme (AREDP). As at mid-2012, AREDP has created over 2,300 savings groups of which 54% are female groups, involving over 12,000 women. Through the Helmand Growth Programme, with the World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU), DFID has provided over $3 million of small loans to over 4,000 people in Helmand to assist farmers and small businessman to grow their businesses and increase their income. This element of the programme, however, will soon close: in March 2012 DFID Afghanistan adopted a plan to re-work the programme into a more focused and manageable entity that takes into account Helmand’s transition timeline and the evolution of the Provincial Reconstruction Team.

The DFID submission says that “The UK provides support to the Governors of a number of provinces including Helmand through the Governor’s Performance Improvement Programme (GPIP) (£9.5 million over three years)”. However the DFID website under projects says the budget for the Programme is just £79,962. Please could you explain the difference in the figures?

The original approved budget for the Governors’ Performance Improvement Programme (GPIP) was £9.5 million over three years.

Note: £79,962 represents only one component of this programme. We have asked for this to be rectified on the website and are following up.

Is the main DFID programme with the Afghan police the project on the DFID website—Strategic Support to the Ministry of Interior (SSMI) [202109] of £7,230,000? How is this money spent? How much of DFID’s funding to the conflict pool is spent on policing? How much of the £70 million commitment from UK to ANSF comes from DFID?

SSMI is DFID’s main bilateral support to Afghan policing. The project focuses on building leadership and management systems within the Ministry of the Interior and building the capacity of senior leaders, managers and others within the Ministry perform their key functions and responsibilities better. This will result in them having the necessary systems and trained personnel to raise the performance level of the Ministry, and increase the public’s ability to hold them to account.

In FY12/13 £13.2 million of the Afghanistan Conflict Pool budget is allocated to policing. DFID, FCO and MOD are jointly responsible for the full Conflict Pool budget.

The UK’s £70 million commitment to fund the ANSF from 2015 is likely to be provided by the Conflict Pool.

Are DFID staff rotations six weeks on two weeks off or as in ICAI report eight weeks on two weeks off?

DFID provides staff with a two week breather break after every six weeks in country to reunite them with family and friends.

In the supplementary briefing provided to the Committee by DFID in Afghanistan it says that DFID is supporting a programme of institutional reform and capacity building in the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL) through Increasing Agricultural Potential in Afghanistan, a £20 million agricultural programme approved in April 2011. What is this listed as under projects on DFID’s website? Also how much is new Bamiyan project costing and is it listed on website—what under?

Increasing Agricultural Potential in Afghanistan—listed as project 201035 (http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/project.aspx?Project=201035) is now closed. The programme of institutional reform and capacity building in the MAIL will go ahead under the programme Strengthening the Agriculture Sector in Afghanistan (SASA) 203474 a £12.93 million project approved in April 2012. (http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/project.aspx?Project=203474)

The Agricultural Support Programme (ASP), Bamyan—DFID will provide £3 million over three years to this programme led by the New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID). Expected results include increased productivity and value of agriculture, food security and household incomes in Bamyan for participating communities. Progress will be measured against increased potato and wheat yields; regenerated area of rangeland vegetation; and increased co-operative incomes. The ASP falls under the broader Strengthening the Agriculture Sector in Afghanistan (SASA) programme—listed as project 203474—http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/project.aspx?Project=203474; total budget £12.93 million.

On Para 149 of 2008 report—Committee said there was insufficient funding to agriculture and livestock sectors—DFID agreed there was a need to increase donor funding, said Afghanistan National Development Strategy was dealing with it and said it would provide update. I have contacted my predecessor and she says as far as she remembers no update was provided. Any way of finding out if one was and if there wasn’t could DFID now provide an update?

Since 2009 DFIDA has committed £46million to the agriculture sector through its bilateral funding. This is in addition to the amount spent on agriculture by the ARTF, to which DFID is a significant contributor.

All DFID Afghanistan agriculture and rural development programmes are designed to support the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS) and the National Agriculture Development Framework, which was published by the Government of Afghanistan in April 2009. The priority areas identified in the NADF are:

Natural resource management.

Agriculture production and productivity.

Economic regeneration.

Programme support and change management.

DFID Afghanistan’s agriculture portfolio contributes to these areas by:

Increasing productivity and value of agriculture, rehabilitated rangelands, food security and household incomes in Bamyan for participating communities through the ASP (through better natural resource management, agriculture production and productivity and economic regeneration).

Supporting MAIL’s change management programme to deliver its NPPs,and supporting the DAILS (Directors of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock) in Bamyan and Helmand (through programme support and change management expertise).

CARD-F (£30 million over 2010–13) Facilitating the design, coordination and funding of high-impact interventions (called Economic Development Packages (EDPs)) for targeted districts (largely those that have become poppy-free) through the Comprehensive Agriculture and Rural Development Facility (CARD-F). It does this by providing technical assistance to the Afghan-run CARD-F Management Unit which will eventually become part of government.

Supporting irrigation system development and management through the ARTF.

The DFID website says that £31,000,000 goes to The National Solidarity Programme (NSP)—is that all through the ARTF?

DFID made “preferenced” payments to the National Solidarity Programme (NSP) totalling £31 million from 2003 to 2009, channelled through the ARTF. This reflects old policy practice as we no longer make preferenced payments to the ARTF.

Is the DFID office in Afghanistan the largest country office in the world for DFID?

DFID Afghanistan is the fourth largest country office, behind Pakistan, Nigeria and India. In the years up to 2014–15, DFID Afghanistan is expected to become the sixth largest country office, behind Ethiopia, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Pakistan.

Of the current (not local) DFID Afghanistan staff (based in London and Afghanistan) how long have they worked on the subject of Afghanistan for DFID and/or another department or NGO? What is the longest that any member of (not local) DFID staff has worked on the subject of Afghanistan (current or past employee)?

The longest period a current or past HCS member of staff has worked on the subject of Afghanistan is five years and one month—two periods in Kabul divided by a posting in London. We also have other staff who have been working on Afghanistan issues between two and five years. The new Deputy Head of Office, starting in the Autumn, is returning to work on Afghanistan following a number of previous Afghanistan postings between 2005 and 2009.

Annex A

SAIC STAFF RATES OF PAY

The following tables show current (from April 2011) rates of pay for SAIC staff at the various DFID grades. In April 2011 SAIC staff received a 16% pay increase in line with local market trends. This year’s pay award (currently under review) is likely to be less, again in line with local market trends. This work is conducted with independent reviewers.

REFERS TO 35 HOURS PER WEEK

A2

60th Percentile	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3	Point 4	Point 5	Point 6	Point 7	Point 8	Point 9	Point 10
Previous scales	$40,448	$42,736	$45,024	$47,311	$49,599	$51,887	$54,175	$56,462	$58,750	$58,198
Previous scales(monthly)	$3,371	$3,561	$3,752	$3,943	$4,133	$4,324	$4,515	$4,705	$4,896	$4,850
Step value	$1,972
Current scales	$46,920	$49,574	$52,227	$54,881	$57,535	$60,189	$62,843	$65,496	$68,150	$67,510
Current scales (monthly)	$3,910	$4,131	$4,352	$4,573	$4,795	$5,016	$5,237	$5,458	$5,679	$5,626
Step value	$2,288

REFERS TO 35 HOURS PER WEEK

A2L

60th Percentile	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3	Point 4	Point 5	Point 6	Point 7	Point 8	Point 9	Point 10
Previous scales	$33,379	$34,854	$36,330	$37,805	$39,281	$40,756	$42,231	$43,707	$45,182	$44,826
Previous scales(monthly)	$2,782	$2,905	$3,027	$3,150	$3,273	$3,396	$3,519	$3,642	$3,765	$3,736
Step value	$1,272
Current scales	$38,720	$40,431	$42,143	$43,854	$45,565	$47,277	$48,988	$50,700	$52,411	$51,998
Current scales (monthly)	$3,227	$3,369	$3,512	$3,655	$3,797	$3,940	$4,082	$4,225	$4,368	$4,333
Step value	$1,475

REFERS TO 35 HOURS PER WEEK

B1

60th Percentile	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3	Point 4	Point 5	Point 6	Point 7	Point 8	Point 9	Point 10
Previous scales	$27,439	$28,536	$29,632	$30,729	$31,826	$32,922	$34,019	$35,116	$36,212	$37,309
Previous scales(monthly)	$2,287	$2,378	$2,469	$2,561	$2,652	$2,744	$2,835	$2,926	$3,018	$3,109
Step value	$1,097
Current scales	$31,829	$33,101	$34,374	$35,646	$36,918	$38,190	$39,462	$40,734	$42,006	$43,278
Current scales (monthly)	$2,652	$2,758	$2,864	$2,970	$3,076	$3,182	$3,289	$3,395	$3,501	$3,607
Step value	$1,272

REFERS TO 35 HOURS PER WEEK

B2

60th Percentile	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3	Point 4	Point 5	Point 6	Point 7	Point 8	Point 9	Point 10
Previous scales	$16,815	$17,921	$19,026	$20,132	$21,237	$22,343	$23,448	$24,554	$25,659	$26,765
Previous scales(monthly)	$1,401	$1,493	$1,586	$1,678	$1,770	$1,862	$1,954	$2,046	$2,138	$2,230
Step value	$1,106
Current scales	$19,505	$20,788	$22,070	$23,353	$24,635	$25,918	$27,200	$28,483	$29,765	$31,047
Current scales (monthly)	$1,625	$1,732	$1,839	$1,946	$2,053	$2,160	$2,267	$2,374	$2,480	$2,587
Step value	$1,282

REFERS TO 35 HOURS PER WEEK

C1

60th Percentile	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3	Point 4	Point 5	Point 6	Point 7	Point 8	Point 9	Point 10
Previous scales	$13,477	$13,854	$14,230	$14,607	$14,983	$15,360	$15,736	$16,113	$16,489	$16,866
Previous scales(monthly)	$1,123	$1,154	$1,186	$1,217	$1,249	$1,280	$1,311	$1,343	$1,374	$1,406
Step value	$377
Current scales	$15,633	$16,070	$16,507	$16,944	$17,381	$17,817	$18,254	$18,691	$19,128	$19,565
Current scales (monthly)	$1,303	$1,339	$1,376	$1,412	$1,448	$1,485	$1,521	$1,558	$1,594	$1,630
Step value	$437

REFERS TO 35 HOURS PER WEEK

C2/C3 Combined

60th Percentile	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3	Point 4	Point 5	Point 6	Point 7	Point 8	Point 9	Point 10
Previous scales	$7,479	$8,145	$8,812	$9,478	$10,145	$10,811	$11,478	$12,144	$12,811	$13,477
Previous scales(monthly)	$623	$679	$734	$790	$845	$901	$957	$1,012	$1,068	$1,123
Step value	$666
Current scales	$8,676	$9,448	$10,222	$10,994	$11,768	$12,541	$13,314	$14,087	$14,861	$15,633
Current scales (monthly)	$723	$787	$852	$916	$981	$1,045	$1,110	$1,174	$1,238	$1,303
Step value	$773

REFERS TO 40 HOURS PER WEEK

C2/C3 Combined Drivers

60th Percentile	Point 1	Point 2	Point 3	Point 4	Point 5	Point 6	Point 7	Point 8	Point 9	Point 10
Previous scales	$8,547	$9,309	$10,071	$10,832	$11,594	$12,355	$13,118	$13,879	$14,641	$15,402
Previous scales(monthly)	$712	$776	$839	$903	$966	$1,030	$1,093	$1,157	$1,220	$1,284
Step value	$762
Current scales	$9,915	$10,798	$11,682	$12,565	$13,449	$14,332	$15,217	$16,099	$16,984	$17,867
Current scales(monthly)	$826	$900	$974	$1,047	$1,121	$1,194	$1,268	$1,342	$1,415	$1,489
Step value	$884

September 2012