International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by ADD International

Summary of Key Points

This submission addresses three of the questions that the select committee raised in the call for evidence:

1.DFID’s ability to spend the large increase in its 2013–14 budget efficiently and effectively.

We strongly welcome the increase in DFID’s budget in 2013–14, but raise questions about whether sufficient institutional capacity—particularly human resources—are in place to ensure that the most marginalised people are targeted. While other areas that could be affected by the increase in resources in the context of constrained administration costs (such as the risk of corruption) are being addressed through specific measures to boost institutional capacity, there is no evidence of a similar process being put in place for reaching the most marginalised.

2.DFID’s results framework, including the choice of indicators in its Annual Report and the reporting of progress.

The Annual Report responds to the UK Government’s obligations under the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, including the requirement to target assistance to the poorest countries and people. Some evidence of targeting specific marginalised populations is provided in the Report, in particular women and girls. However, overall the choice of indicators in the results framework provides little evidence of progress toward targeting the poorest people, and there is very little attention paid to groups other than women and girls, for example the poorest quintile, disabled people and elderly people.

3.Whether DFID’s current staffing levels are adequate

We raise concerns about inadequate levels of specialist knowledge regarding the links between marginalisation and poverty, and suggest improvements based on the experience of AusAid’s “Development for All” strategy. In particular, we question why the leadership for tackling issues related to disability is carried by the Civil Society Department; while the civil society department are an excellent department for external organisations to work with, they may not be the most effectively places to ensure the integration of disability into DFID programmes.

About ADD International

Since 1985 ADD International has been working in partnership with disabled people and their organisations in some of the poorest countries in Africa and Asia. We do this by encouraging disabled people to come together to channel their voices and campaign for their own rights, and providing practical and financial support to existing disabled people’s organisations. ADD holds a PPA agreement with DFID.

Introduction

DFID’s annual report addresses the requirements of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, which it describes as “strengthen[ing] the accountability of the UK Government in delivering its pledges to help the world’s poorest countries and people.”1 As such one of the indicators against which progress is reported is “Feeding the world and helping the poorest”. A focus on the poorest people in the world is increasingly recognised as not only desirable, but as an efficient and effective way to bolster development and accelerate progress towards the MDGs.2 The commitment is clearly in line with the Government’s commitments in the Coalition Agreement (which pledged to “help the poorest people in the world” and to focus on the rights of specifically excluded groups—women, children and disabled people to access services3), and the outcome documents from the Bilateral and Multilateral Aid Reviews. How DFID responds to the challenge of ensuring greater equity in development outcomes is one of the key challenges facing the Department, and the focus of this submission.

There has been impressive progress towards poverty reduction in recent decades. However, these headline achievements mask ongoing systemic marginalisation and inequality which mean that, even at the current rate of progress, one billion will still be living in extreme poverty by 2015. Disabled people—who represent one in seven of the world’s population—are disproportionately represented among those still trapped in extreme and chronic poverty because of the links between disability, marginalisation and poverty. While recognising that marginalisation must be addressed holistically and systematically, this submission will look specifically at the evidence regarding how DFID addresses the challenge of reducing the poverty and discrimination that disabled people face.

We will address questions one and three (“DFID’s ability to spend the large increase in its 2013–14 budget efficiently and effectively” and “Whether DFID’s current staffing levels are adequate”) together.

DFID’s ability to Spend the large Increase in its 2013–14 Budget Efficiently and Effectively and whether DFID’s Current Staffing Levels are Adequate

We strongly welcome the Government’s continuing commitment to increase UK ODA to 0.7% of GNI by 2013. DFID have clearly recognised the challenges that an increasing budget creates in the context of a one-third reduction in administration costs. The Annual Report states that as a result, the Department “has placed results and value for money at the heart of its programme investments and management”.4 Specific steps are also mentioned toward increasing organisational capacity in critical areas that may be affected by increases in budget managed by a limited staff. For example in order to restrict the potential for corruption the report commits to: appoint a senior “anti-corruption champion”; require every priority country to produce an anti-corruption strategy; and “upskill DFID staff in the way to check for fraud and corruption and in what has been shown to make a difference to tackling corruption in poor countries.”5

We argue that as the budget increases, careful consideration must also be paid to whether the results achieved are shared by marginalised groups who face dramatic levels of poverty, particularly in the context of recent findings that suggest equity-focused approaches to development are the most practical and cost-effective way of meeting the MDGs.6 We are concerned that sufficient measures to ensure that marginalisation and the needs of specific disadvantaged populations do not seem to be demonstrated within the Annual Report.

There are some encouraging signs of greater engagement with disability in the Annual Report, compared to the universal neglect of this issue in 2011’s country operational plans7—particularly specific support to disabled people in the reports from the Bangladesh, Pakistan and Uganda country offices.8 However, there is no evidence of a systematic organisational approach ensuring that the needs of disabled people are considered across DFID’s work, and therefore at present it seems that disability is addressed only in countries in which staff members happen to have expertise on the issue.

We believe that this may be related to the low profile given to disability within DFID as a whole. The 2011–12 Annual Diversity Report mentions that the “Civil Society Department is preparing a discussion paper for DFID’s Development Policy Committee in March 2012 to assess our work on disability as part of our efforts to make disability well recognised on the international scene.”9 While we welcome this excellent initiative, we are concerned that the leadership on disability is currently provided by a relatively low-grade member of staff in the Civil Society Department, rather than a senior member of staff with responsibility across the organisation including bilateral programmes and relations with multilateral organisations. The latter arrangement is seen at USAID, the US Government’s aid agency, in which a senior adviser dedicated to the inclusion of disabled people has a broad remit.

It is widely recognised that in order to ensure critical issues such as gender and disability are addressed within an organisation, it is necessary to put in place a number of steps including: high-level leadership; support to improve staff knowledge and skills related to the issue across the organisation; and embedding accountability for the issue in organisational processes. The Australian Government’s international development body AusAid recently implemented a new strategy on disability and development covering precisely these areas.10

In 2011, at a meeting with civil society representatives from a range of organisations working on disability-related issues including ADD International, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Stephen O’Brien MP recognised the need for greater attention to the exclusion of disabled children from school in DFID country programmes, and committed to provide leadership and resources to meet this need. In particular, he endorsed the group’s recommendation that an individual staff member in each DFID country office should be designated as a “point person” responsible for ensuring the inclusion of disabled people in DFID programmes and committed that this recommendation would be put into practice. However, as yet no evidence of this being carried out has emerged.

Recommendations

We argue that as DFID staff are progressively required to manage larger budgets while experiencing decreases in staff and administrative budgets, support and leadership to ensure that DFID’s development results reach the most marginalised will become even more critical. We therefore recommend that DFID implement a strategy similar to AusAid’s, including establishing high-level champions for marginalisation and disability, developing staff skills in the area, and establishing accountability systems. The recommendations accepted by former PUSS O’Brien, particularly the designation of a lead on disability within each priority country office, should be implemented immediately.

DFID’s Results Framework, including the choice of Indicators in its Annual Report and the Reporting of Progress

There is some evidence within the Annual Report of targeting specific marginalised populations, in particular women and girls. However, overall the choice of indicators in the results framework provides little evidence of progress toward targeting the poorest people. For example, the headline target in the section “Feeding the world and helping the poorest” is that DFID will “help more than 6 million of the world’s poorest people to escape extreme poverty”. However the indicator used to measure progress against this target does not include a measure of poverty levels, and instead simply measures “the number of people benefitting from DFID-supported cash transfer programmes.”11

We argue that insufficient attention has been paid to addressing shortcomings in the disaggregation of data on results, which are typically reported at a very high level with little attention to the impact on specific marginalised groups such as disabled people and elderly people. Commendably, bilateral results are disaggregated by gender for many of DFID’s indicators,12 suggesting that further disaggregation could be possible to demonstrate the commitment to results for the poorest. We recognise that the development of better sources of data takes time, but we believe that a commitment to further disaggregation for specific marginalised groups is an essential step towards ensuring DFID support effectively targets these groups.

Recommendations

DFID should pay more attention to the impact of their results on marginalised groups. DFID should create and implement a strategy for obtaining disaggregated data for groups that are widely recognised to be excluded such as: the poorest quintile, disabled people, elderly people, ethnic and linguistic minorities, and rural populations.

November 2012