Philippine Country
Presentation on
Results-Based Management
for Public Sector Excellence
Outline of
Presentation
I.
Country Profile
A
II. Results-Based Management
Framework
A
III. Organizational Performance
Indicator Framework (OPIF)
A
IV. Continuing Challenges
Country Profile:
The Republic of the Philippines
QUICK GLANCE:
Official Name
Location
: Republic of the Philippines
: Southeastern Asia, archipelago
between the Philippine Sea and
South China Sea, east of Vietnam
Islands
: 7,107
Area
:300,000 square kilometers
Capital
: Manila
Climate
: Tropical Marine/Monsoon
Population
: 88.5 Million
Literacy
: 92.6%
Religions
: Roman Catholic 80.9%
Muslim 5%, Evangelical 2.8%
Basic Ed Cycle
: 10 years
Medium of Inst.
: English except for Filipino Subject
No. of Dialects Spoken: Over 200 native languages and
dialects
Philippine Government
Structure
CITIZENS/STAKEHOLDERS
Senate (Upper Chamber)
Provision of
Public Services
President
Cabinet Secretaries (23)
House of
Representatives
(Lower Chamber)
Constitutional
Bodies
Departments, e.g.
Department of
Education (DepEd)
Provision of
CSC
Public Services
COMELEC
Expenditures
Department of Agrarian
Reform
Judiciary
COA
Expenditures
Department of Finance
Revenues
OMB
Supreme Court
Department Budget and
Management
Court of Appeals
National Economic and
Development
Authority
Lower Courts
REGION
Local Government Units:
17
Provinces
80
Local Government Units:
Municipalities (1,511) or Cities (120)
Local Government Units:
Barangays (42,008)
Revenues
CHR
Results-Based Management Framework
Linkages of a PMS
Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP)
Agency Strategic Plan
Organizational Performance Indicators Framework
(OPIF)
Agency Performance Management System (PMS)
Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System (CESPES)
Office Performance Evaluation System (OPES)
Performance Evaluation System (PES)
Uses of Results Based Management
Depicts the logical links between the various results levels
(impact, outcome, output) and activities (inputs)
Guides results-oriented steering of an intervention
towards its defined objectives
Basis for monitoring & evaluation by defining indicators
for all level of the results chains e.g. FY 2008 Budget
Performance Assessment (BPA)
Form the basis for results-oriented reporting to
financiers, stakeholders, the public.
Promotes a high-performance culture in the public
sector workplace by aligning individual objectives to
the organizational objectives
The Organizational Performance
Indicator (OPIF) Framework
An approach to expenditure management that enables an
agency to focus its resources to core and vital functions
A tool that measures agency performance
by key quality and quantity indicators
It is an avenue to install results-based management
in the bureaucracy
Why Adopt OPIF
• Broad international debate on gearing project
implementation to results (effects / outcomes / impact)
instead of inputs, activities and outputs
What have we done vs. What have we achieved in terms of results
• Nourished by MDGs and the question of how development
cooperation contributes to the attainment of these MDGs /
MDG indicators
• Complements the effectiveness of bilateral development
cooperation
Value for Money
The Office Performance Evaluation System
Career Executive Service – Performance
Evaluation System (CESPES)
Office Performance Evaluation System
for Units and Division Chiefs
Performance Evaluation System (PES)
for Individual Staff
Why Measure Office Performance?
• Directly translates the agency’s strategic
direction into more specific and
measurable objectives
• Serves as mechanism for better alignment
of individual objectives to agency
objectives
• Enhances objectivity of individual
RBM-OPIF
of
Impact The Definition
long-term effect produced
by an
Results
intervention (intended or unintended,
terms
directly or indirectly related to the
The outputs,
outcomes and
impacts of a
development
intervention
(intended or
unintended, positive
or negative)
intervention, positive or negative
Outcome The shortDirect Observed positive
and
Benefit development
mediumchanges that show
term effects
a causal
of an
relationship with
intervention’
the intervention
s outputs
Use of Utilisation of
Outputs products, goods
and services
provided by the
intervention
Outputs The products (e.g. goods and services)
including imparted skills, knowledge,
attitude changes immediately emanating
from the intervention’s activities
Activities The actions performed to produce specific
outputs (by mobilising the intervention’s
inputs)
Inputs
The resources (human, financial and
material) used for undertaken activities
DAR’s Results-Based Organizational Performance Indicator
*_/
Framework
DAR’s Results-based OPIF
POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
SOCIETAL GOAL
SECTOR GOALS
• Percentage contribution to poverty reduction in the rural areas
• ARB households with income above the poverty threshold
AGRARIAN PEACE AND
COUNTRYSIDE STABILITY
SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR
ARBs AND LANDOWNERS
AGRI-BASED
RURAL INDUSTRIALIZATION
• Reduced number of agrarian
conflicts
• Reduced skewedness on land
ownership (more tillers are
owning land)
• Jobs generated
• Sustained profitability of agri-business
endevours
ORG’L OUTCOME
DIRECT
BENEFITS
IMPROVED FARM PRODUCTION,
INCOME AND WELL-BEING
OF ARB HOUSEHOLDS
IMPROVED LAND TENURE SECURITY
OF THE ARBs
• ARBs maintained ownership of the
awarded lands
A
•
•
•
•
Increased household income
Increased assets of ARB households
Increased yield of crops
Sustained management of ARBs/ARBs
organizations’ profitable enterprises
• Enhanced socio economic condition of
the ARB households and the entire
community
• Satisfaction with the benefits
B
This is specific for DAR-OPIF. A CARP-OPIF is with PARC
ORG’L OUTCOME
USE OF
OUTPUTS
A
B
IMPROVED LAND TENURE SECURITY OF THE ARBs
IMPROVED FARM PRODUCTION, INCOME AND
WELL-BEING OF ARB HOUSEHOLDS
• For the ARBs to take ownership,
control and use of awarded lands
ARBs continued cultivation of the
awarded lands (actual tillers)
ARBs managed the awarded lands
(with hired laborers)
ARBs paid the land amortizational
regularly
• For the landowners to receive just
compensation of their lands and invest
in rural industries
Landowners invested in specific type
of rural enterprises/industries
Landowners have been paid by the
Land Bank of the Philippines
MFOs
Land Tenure Instruments
Awarded to Landless Farmers
and LOs Compensation Facilitated
Legal Assistance Provided
to ARBs and LOs
• For the ARBs to have greater access to
agricultural
credit/microfinance,
techno- logy, market support services,
physical infrastructures to profitably
manage an enterprise or agribusiness
endevour
ARB organizations have been
functional for support services delivery
ARBs accessed agricultural credit and
microfinance
ARBs adopted appropriate and
environment-friendly farm production
and post-production technologies
ARBs produced commercial agri- and
non-agri-products
ARBs
accessed
physical
• Forinfrastructures
the ARBs to have better access to
basic social services
ARB households used health services
and facilities
ARB
households
accessed
continuous education
ARB households used potable water
supply
ARB households used power supply
Support Services Implemented, Facilitated
and Coordinated for Delivery to ARBs
Land Tenure Instruments Awarded to
Landless Farmers and LOs Compensation
Facilitated
MFOs
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
PER PROGRAM
a. Land Acquisition and Distribution
a.1 Area ( in hectares ) distributed
a.2 No. of ARBs covered
a.3 Area (in hectares) of new lands with
approved survey plans
a.4 Area (in has.) of LBP-compensable
lands with Notice of Land Valuation
and Acquisition
b. Leasehold Implementation
b.1 Area ( in hectares ) under leasehold
agreement
b.2 No. of ARBs with leasehold contracts
c. Other Land Tenure Improvement
Services
c.1 Subdivision of issued Collective
CLOA into Individual Titles
- Area (in hectares) of collective
CLOA
surveyed
- No. of ARBs covered
- Area (in hectares) of individual
CLOA
redocumented and registered
- No. of ARBs covered
c.2 Redocumentation of Distributed Not
Yet Paid (DNYP) Distributed Not Yet
Documented (DNYD) Lands
- Area (in hectares.) involved
- No. of Claim Folders processed
c.3 Installation of uninstalled ARBs
- No. of ARBs installed
- Area (in hectares) involved
c.4 Generation of Land Distribution and
Information Schedule (LDIS)
- No. of LDIS generated
- Area (has) and No. of ARBs
involved
- No. of LDIS forwarded to LBP
- Area (has) and No. of ARBs
involved
c.5 ARB Carding
- No. of ARBs profiled
- No. of ARBs issued with ID cards
Legal Assistance Provided
to ARBs and LOs
Support Services Implemented, Facilitated
and Coordinated for Delivery to ARBs
a. Adjudication of Agrarian Cases
- Total no. of cases resolved
- No. of affected ARBs
- No. of landowners involved
- Area involved, in hectares
- Percentage reduction in pending cases
a. Social Infrastructure and Local Capability
Building (SILCAB)
a.1 Institutional Development Interventions
- No. of new ARCs confirmed by NARCTF*
- Total No. of ARBs covered (ARCs, SARCs,
expansion areas)
- No of ARC clusters with development plans
- No. of development plans integrated in the
local development plans of Local
Government
Units
- No. of ARC clusters confirmed by the
NARCTF
No. of ARCs
No. of non-ARC barangays
- No. of ARC clusters with development plans
- No. of ARC clusters with functional
implementing
structure
a.2 Capacity Development of ARBs/ARB
organizations
SARCs
- No. of SARCs with development plans
b. Agrarian Legal Assistance
b.1 ARB Representation in Court Cases
b.1.1 Judicial Courts and Prosecutors
Office
- Total no. of cases disposed
- No. of ARBs represented
- Area involved, in hectares
- Percentage reduction in
pending
cases
b.1.2 Quasi-Judicial Courts
- Total no. of cases disposed
- No. of ARBs represented
- Area involved, in hectares
- Percentage reduction in
pending
cases
b.2 Resolution of Agrarian Law
Implementation (ALI) Cases
- Total no. of cases resolved
- No. of ARBs involved
- Area involved, in hectares
- Percentage reduction in pending
cases
b.3 Conduct of Conciliation/Mediation to
assist ARBs and other parties to
amicably
settle agrarian disputes
- No. of disputes settled/disposed
- No. of ARBs involved
- No. of programs/projects implemented in SARCs
w/ relevant agencies, organizations, institutions
(DSWD, DOT, NDCC, DILG, TESDA, NCIP, etc.)
- No. of ARBs benefitted
- No. of unserved/underserved ARBs outside ARCs,
outside the clusters, and outside SARCs provided
with minimum interventions (trainings, credit, and
membership in organizations)
ARB Training
- No. of ARBs trained
In ARC clusters (ARCs and non-ARCs)
In ARCs outside clusters
In SARCs
ARB Membership in Organizations
- No. of ARB Organizations
(cooperatives, associations, irrigators
associations, women’s groups, etc.)
assisted
- No. of new ARB members in
organizations
- Total no. of ARBs in organization /coops
(cumulative)
Partnership Development/Linkaging
DAR’s RBM-OPIF
SOCIETAL
GOAL
POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
•
•
SECTOR
GOALS
ORGANIZATIONAL
OUTCOME
USE OF
OUTPUTS
MFOs
Percentage contribution to poverty reduction in the rural areas
ARB households with income above the poverty threshold
AGRARIAN PEACE AND
COUNTRYSIDE STABILITY
SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR
ARBs AND LANDOWNERS
IMPROVED LAND TENURE SECURITY
OF THE ARBs
For the ARBs to take ownership
control and use of awarded lands
For the landowners to receive
just compensation of their lands and
invest in rural industries
Land Tenure Instruments
Awarded to Landless Farmers
and LOs Compensation Facilitated
Legal Assistance Provided
to ARBs and LOs
AGRI-BASED
RURAL INDUSTRIALIZATION
IMPROVED FARM PRODUCTION,
INCOME AND WELL-BEING
OF ARB HOUSEHOLDS
For the ARBs to have greater access
to agricultural credit /microfinance,
technology, market support services, physical
infrastructures to profitably manage
an enterprise or agribusiness endeavor
For the ARBs to have better access to
basic social services
Support Services Implemented,
Facilitated and Coordinated
for Delivery to ARBs
Program Beneficiaries Development
Strategic Outcome: Increased Productivity, Food Sufficiency and
Income of Farmers
Key
Performance
Indicator
Cost
Target for
Parameter the Year
Infrastructure
-Farm to
Market
Road
PhP
1Million/K
m/
Road
100 KM
Total
Cost
100M
Result
Impact
Increased
accessibility
of farms to
bring
produce to
market
Improved
Income and
Welfare
Other RBM Instruments currently being
Used in Philippine NGAs
• The Agrarian Reform Communities’ Level
of Development Assessment (used by
DAR)
• The CAP-Scan
The Agrarian Reform Communities’
Level of Development Assessment
• Another results-based management tool developed by the
DAR is the ALDA. Its is a development meter that measures
the outcomes of CARP in the lives of the agrarian reform
beneficiaries.
• With the use of the ALDA tool, the 2,105 ARCs and 5,000 ARB
organizations assisted by DAR in the entire country can be
categorized into high level, medium and low level of
development.
The CAP Scan

•

In relation to pursuing Managing for Development Results (MfDR)
management strategy, the DAR , through Secretary/Minister
Nasser C. Pangandaman, expressed interest and willingness to
undertake the Capacity Scan (CAP-Scan) in response to the
World Bank’s call for countries regarding the CAP-Scan tool
application.
The DAR management believes that MfDR management strategy
provides a coherent framework for development effectiveness in
which performance data are used for improved decision-making.
The framework includes practical tools for strategic planning, risk
management, progress monitoring, and outcome evaluation
The CAP Scan
• Specifically, CAP-Scan is a short-term, broad and
high-level diagnostic review to identify and prioritize
needs in the five central pillars of MfDR: (1)
leadership, (2) accountability and partnerships, (3)
monitoring and evaluation, (4) planning and budgeting,
and (5) statistical capacity.
• To discuss the organizational arrangements and other
details for the possible conduct of CAP-Scan in CARP,
Ms. Ingwell Kuil and John Patterson of the World
Bank-Washington had a video conference with the key
officials of DAR.
Continuing Challenges
There is a…
• Need to link existing government
processes/systems across various levels of
governance from national, regional, provincial,
municipal/city, to the barangay, the Philippines’
smallest political unit;
• Need to establish a ‘universal’ database to
facilitate sharing of information for planning and
decision-making purposes;
• Need for top level decision-makers to use resultsbased management as basis for more realistic
resource allocation across departments and all
levels of governance;
Continuing Challenges
• Need to facilitate an enabling
environment conducive to a
systematic building of linkages of
desired results to the achievement
of national development goals;
Next Steps
• Assess existing results-based management
instruments/tools and adopt/formulate a
new model that will be responsive to the
needs and uniqueness of the Philippines as
a country
• Advocate for the adoption of a ‘Whole-ofGovernment (WOG)
Approach/Framework in Managing
Desired Results
Next Steps
• Assess existing results-based management
instruments/tools and adopt/formulate a
new model that will be responsive to the
needs and uniqueness of the Philippines as
a country
• Advocate for the adoption of a ‘Whole-ofGovernment (WOG)
Approach/Framework in Managing
Performance towards desired results
Continuing Challenges
• Review and evaluate further the
applicability of CAP-Scan that is
reflective of the peculiarities of each
country
End of Presentation