KALAHI-CIDSS ME

1. KALAHI-CIDSS M&E 1st M&E Network Forum November 7, 2011

2. KALAHI-CIDSS Overview

3. Project Development Objective �Communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting� To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.

4. KALAHI-CIDSS Interventions Capacity-building and implementation support (CBIS) Grants for project planning and implementation (community-managed) Project management and M&E To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.

5. KALAHI-CIDSS Features Coverage and municipal targeting One-fourth of bottom poor municipalities within a target province. Municipalities are selected from the poorest provinces. Reach All barangays within a target municipality. Target beneficiaries Whole community with emphasis on participation of disadvantaged Hhs To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.

6. KALAHI-CIDSS Features Funding allocation for barangay projects Allocation of grant funds based on local prioritization/selection Priority-setting in KC barangay assembly Prioritization at inter-barangay level 3 cycles per municipality To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.

7. KALAHI-CIDSS Features Funding ceiling Limit for community sub-project is amount of municipal block grant allocation. Allowable community projects Basically open menu with disallowed activities specified in a negative list. To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.

8. KALAHI-CIDSS Features Counterpart required Min 30% with community and other counterparts considered during local selection Monitoring and evaluation Internal monitoring by DSWD; community-level monitoring; external monitoring by NGOs; external impact evaluation To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.To better appreciate KALAHI-CIDSS� experience in monitoring and evaluation, we begin with the Project Development Objectives. The objective of KALAHI-CIDSS is to make �communities in targeted poor municipalities empowered to achieve improved access to sustainable basic public services and to participate in more inclusive LGU planning & budgeting�. From this statement, several major questions were identified that guided the conduct of monitoring and evaluation in KALAHI-CIDSS.

9. Major M&E Questions in KALAHI-CIDSS

10. Major M&E Questions Do households in KC municipalities have voice and choice in KC implementation? Are barangays in KC municipalities empowered to secure sustainable community-based public goods and services? What is the KC project local poverty reduction impact in KC municipalities? Major M&E Questions 1) Do households in bgys of KC municipalities have voice and choice in KC?� 2) Are barangays in KC municipalities empowered to secure sustainable community-based public goods services such as basic community facilities and infrastructure services? 3) What is the KC project local poverty reduction impact in KC municipalities? Major M&E Questions 1) Do households in bgys of KC municipalities have voice and choice in KC?� 2) Are barangays in KC municipalities empowered to secure sustainable community-based public goods services such as basic community facilities and infrastructure services? 3) What is the KC project local poverty reduction impact in KC municipalities?

11. Major M&E Questions What is the KC project impact on barangay residents� participation and willingness to participate in local collective activities? What is the KC project impact on institutionalization of more PTAR* within regular LGU planning and budget process (barangayand municipal levels)? *PTAR = people�s participation, transparency, accountability and responsiveness 4) What is the KC project impact on barangay residents' participation and willingness to participate in local collective action for development? 5) What is the KC project impact on institutionalization of more people's participation, transparency, accountability and responsiveness (PTAR) within the regular LGU process of planning and budgeting? 4) What is the KC project impact on barangay residents' participation and willingness to participate in local collective action for development? 5) What is the KC project impact on institutionalization of more people's participation, transparency, accountability and responsiveness (PTAR) within the regular LGU process of planning and budgeting?

12. Doing M&E in KC

13. KC M&E Activities Monitoring Monitoring Project Field Operations Monitoring of Results Grievance Redress Monitoring To answer the major M&E questions, the following Monitoring and Evaluation activities were conducted throughout the Project life. These activities are grouped into three categories: (i) Monitoring, (ii) Evaluation, and (iii) Support to M&E activities Under Monitoring, KALAHI-CIDSS looks into Project Field Operations, Project Results, and Grievance Redress. Monitoring project field operations. Field operations and delivery of KC assistance for communities are monitored based on inputs, process and output standards in the KC project manuals and KC work and financial plans. Used for controlling schedule, cost and quality at the input-output level, operational monitoring is implemented by regional and national-level KC implementation units. KC operational monitoring is also linked to the KC results-based M&E system Monitoring of results. Results-based monitoring focuses on overall performance of the entire KC project towards achieving outcomes. Specifically, results monitoring tracks if KC implementation is attaining the intermediate conditions needed at the local level, to facilitate achievement of the KC project development outcome. Results-based monitoring in KC is led by national and regional KC M&E units, with support from municipal local government units Monitoring of redress of grievances and concerns from residents in KALAHI-CIDSS areas and the general public is in line with greater transparency and accountability being observed in the KALAHI-CIDSS project. Grievance redress is integrated within the KC CEAC approach to reinforce good local governance, as facilitating factor to improve local decision-making in terms of responsiveness to community needs. To answer the major M&E questions, the following Monitoring and Evaluation activities were conducted throughout the Project life. These activities are grouped into three categories: (i) Monitoring, (ii) Evaluation, and (iii) Support to M&E activities Under Monitoring, KALAHI-CIDSS looks into Project Field Operations, Project Results, and Grievance Redress. Monitoring project field operations. Field operations and delivery of KC assistance for communities are monitored based on inputs, process and output standards in the KC project manuals and KC work and financial plans. Used for controlling schedule, cost and quality at the input-output level, operational monitoring is implemented by regional and national-level KC implementation units. KC operational monitoring is also linked to the KC results-based M&E system Monitoring of results. Results-based monitoring focuses on overall performance of the entire KC project towards achieving outcomes. Specifically, results monitoring tracks if KC implementation is attaining the intermediate conditions needed at the local level, to facilitate achievement of the KC project development outcome. Results-based monitoring in KC is led by national and regional KC M&E units, with support from municipal local government units Monitoring of redress of grievances and concerns from residents in KALAHI-CIDSS areas and the general public is in line with greater transparency and accountability being observed in the KALAHI-CIDSS project. Grievance redress is integrated within the KC CEAC approach to reinforce good local governance, as facilitating factor to improve local decision-making in terms of responsiveness to community needs.

14. KC M&E Activities Evaluations Community-based Learning and Evaluation (CBE) Third party/NGO monitoring External technical and impact evaluation Municipal Assessment is an enhancement of the Community-based evaluation or CBE. Under CBE, focus group discussions are held in each barangay after each cycle of KALAHI-CIDSS implementation where community members identify how the Project affected their development. As an enhancement and reflecting the principles of the KC-CIDSS, Municipal �Assessments aims to further promote participation and ownership of the project through annual participatory stakeholder review.� It involves feedback of information to primary stakeholders comprising local governments at the municipal and barangay levels, barangay citizens and field project management teams; and self-assessments by these stakeholders along indicators�which point to�the project's longer-term outcomes of empowerment, more inclusive local governance and sustained access to basic public services.� To promote transparency, KALAHI-CIDSS also taps civil society organizations to conduct third party thematic evaluations. This activity will be closely implemented with the Department�s Bantay, Gabay, Kaagapay, Tulay initiative. Finally, several external technical and impact evaluation were conducted by the World Bank. In 2006, Araral and Holmemo, looked into the economic rate of return of KALAHI-CIDSS and of top community-identified sub-projects. This study covered 1,175 sub-projects. For the impact evaluation, the World Bank engaged Asia Pacific Policy Center (APPC), Empowering Civic Participation in Governance (ECPG) and the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) to undertake baseline, midterm and endline qualitative and quantitative studies. Municipal Assessment is an enhancement of the Community-based evaluation or CBE. Under CBE, focus group discussions are held in each barangay after each cycle of KALAHI-CIDSS implementation where community members identify how the Project affected their development. As an enhancement and reflecting the principles of the KC-CIDSS, Municipal �Assessments aims to further promote participation and ownership of the project through annual participatory stakeholder review.� It involves feedback of information to primary stakeholders comprising local governments at the municipal and barangay levels, barangay citizens and field project management teams; and self-assessments by these stakeholders along indicators�which point to�the project's longer-term outcomes of empowerment, more inclusive local governance and sustained access to basic public services.� To promote transparency, KALAHI-CIDSS also taps civil society organizations to conduct third party thematic evaluations. This activity will be closely implemented with the Department�s Bantay, Gabay, Kaagapay, Tulay initiative. Finally, several external technical and impact evaluation were conducted by the World Bank. In 2006, Araral and Holmemo, looked into the economic rate of return of KALAHI-CIDSS and of top community-identified sub-projects. This study covered 1,175 sub-projects. For the impact evaluation, the World Bank engaged Asia Pacific Policy Center (APPC), Empowering Civic Participation in Governance (ECPG) and the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) to undertake baseline, midterm and endline qualitative and quantitative studies.

15. Structure The KALAHI-CIDSS M&E is structured to involve all levels in the generation, consolidation and use of data. Starting at the community level, KC volunteers and barangay officials are tapped to prepare activity reports, minutes and other project documents that serve as source of information. These reports are then encoded into the Project�s database by LGU counterpart staff under the supervision of DSWD Area Coordinators. At the Regional level, the Project has a team of M&E officers that consolidate, process and analyze municipal information. The Regional M&Es also provide feedback to the LGUs and reports to the Regional DSWD management. Finally, they are also tasked to monitor resolution of grievances filed at the municipal and regional levels. At the NPMO, the M&E unit is divided into four groups: the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) Monitors, the Project Evaluators, Database Managers and Grievance Redress Monitors. The NPMO M&E Unit is responsible in providing technical assistance to RPMOs, development of Project Information Management System, consolidation of regional reports, monitoring of grievance resolution, and generating reports to DSWD management, oversight agencies and funding institutions.The KALAHI-CIDSS M&E is structured to involve all levels in the generation, consolidation and use of data. Starting at the community level, KC volunteers and barangay officials are tapped to prepare activity reports, minutes and other project documents that serve as source of information. These reports are then encoded into the Project�s database by LGU counterpart staff under the supervision of DSWD Area Coordinators. At the Regional level, the Project has a team of M&E officers that consolidate, process and analyze municipal information. The Regional M&Es also provide feedback to the LGUs and reports to the Regional DSWD management. Finally, they are also tasked to monitor resolution of grievances filed at the municipal and regional levels. At the NPMO, the M&E unit is divided into four groups: the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) Monitors, the Project Evaluators, Database Managers and Grievance Redress Monitors. The NPMO M&E Unit is responsible in providing technical assistance to RPMOs, development of Project Information Management System, consolidation of regional reports, monitoring of grievance resolution, and generating reports to DSWD management, oversight agencies and funding institutions.

16. Results from KC-1 M&E (2003-May 2011)

17. Do households in KC mun. have voice and choice in KC implementation? Broad-based representation of Hhs during KC brgy assemblies 72% of Hhs represented (40-60% women represntn) 32% (63) of municipalities are with IP residents 19% of the barangays covered are CABs Do households in KC mun. have voice and choice in KC? Broader-based representation of households during KC barangay assemblies 72% of households represented, with 40-60% women representation 32% or 63 of KC covered municipalities are with IP residents 19% of the barangays covered are considered conflict affected barangays Do households in KC mun. have voice and choice in KC? Broader-based representation of households during KC barangay assemblies 72% of households represented, with 40-60% women representation 32% or 63 of KC covered municipalities are with IP residents 19% of the barangays covered are considered conflict affected barangays

18. Do households in KC mun. have voice and choice in KC? Project identification and management of community planning and implementation executed by trained Bgy Assembly-elected volunteers 140,988 community volunteers trained by KC in PSA, project prioritization, planning, community mgt, community finance, procurement, operation & maintenance, etc. (4583 barangays, 200 municipalities) KC funding provided based on community choice 5,876 community project proposals chosen in barangay assemblies and inter-barangay prioritization got KC funding (total = P4.2 B) Do households in KC mun. have voice and choice in KC? Sub-projects funded are found to be responsive to community needs. 5,876 brgy/community proposals were given priority for KC funding during the Municipal-Inter Barangay Forum 140,988 community volunteers were trained in planning, community management, community finance, procurement, etc. Do households in KC mun. have voice and choice in KC? Sub-projects funded are found to be responsive to community needs. 5,876 brgy/community proposals were given priority for KC funding during the Municipal-Inter Barangay Forum 140,988 community volunteers were trained in planning, community management, community finance, procurement, etc.

19. KC-funded Community Projects Sub-projects under each category Basic Social Services: Day Care Center, Electrification, Health Station, School, Water System and Tribal Housing Rural Access Infrastructure: Access Trail, Foot/Small Bridge, and Road Community Production, Economic Support and Common Service Facility: Community Transport, Economic/Livelihood Support (Training/Trading Center, Market, Bagsakan, Mini Port), Multi-Use Building, Pre and Post Harvest Facility, and Small Scale Irrigation Environmental Protection and Conservation: Drainage, Environmental Preservation (Artificial Coral Reefs/Marine Sanctuary), River/Flood Control, Sanitation Facility, Sea Wall and Soil/Slope Protection Skills Trainings/Capability-Building Light House/Eco-TourismSub-projects under each category Basic Social Services: Day Care Center, Electrification, Health Station, School, Water System and Tribal Housing Rural Access Infrastructure: Access Trail, Foot/Small Bridge, and Road Community Production, Economic Support and Common Service Facility: Community Transport, Economic/Livelihood Support (Training/Trading Center, Market, Bagsakan, Mini Port), Multi-Use Building, Pre and Post Harvest Facility, and Small Scale Irrigation Environmental Protection and Conservation: Drainage, Environmental Preservation (Artificial Coral Reefs/Marine Sanctuary), River/Flood Control, Sanitation Facility, Sea Wall and Soil/Slope Protection Skills Trainings/Capability-Building Light House/Eco-Tourism

20. Are KC brgys empowered to secure sustainable community-based public goods and services? 98% of KC-funded community projects were implemented in compliance with KC technical standards and budget 99% of community projects were able to meet KC financial reporting standards 96% of completed community projects obtained passing KC sustainability ratings Are KC brgys empowered to secure sustainable community-based public goods and services? Brgys of KC municipalities are successful in planning, implementing and sustaining sub-projects 98% of sub-projects were implemented in compliance with technical standards and budget 99% of sub-projects were able to meet basic financial reporting standards based on the KC Finance and Administration Manual 96% of sub-projects obtained passing sustainability ratings Are KC brgys empowered to secure sustainable community-based public goods and services? Brgys of KC municipalities are successful in planning, implementing and sustaining sub-projects 98% of sub-projects were implemented in compliance with technical standards and budget 99% of sub-projects were able to meet basic financial reporting standards based on the KC Finance and Administration Manual 96% of sub-projects obtained passing sustainability ratings

21. What is the KC project local poverty reduction impact in KC municipalities? Indicator for HH income increased by 6% (Indicator used was household expenditures) Sources of income of Hhs in KC munis are more diversified vs Hhs in non-KC munis Business and agricultural activities increased in KC munis vs non-KC munis What is the KC project local poverty reduction impact in KC municipalities? Indicator for household income increased by 6%. The study used household expenditures as proxy for income. Sources of income of households in KC municipalities are more diversified as against households in non-KC municipalities Business and agricultural activities increased in KC municipalities as against non-KC municipalities What is the KC project local poverty reduction impact in KC municipalities? Indicator for household income increased by 6%. The study used household expenditures as proxy for income. Sources of income of households in KC municipalities are more diversified as against households in non-KC municipalities Business and agricultural activities increased in KC municipalities as against non-KC municipalities

22. External Impact Evaluation Quantitative Study Schedule: 2003, 2006 and 2010 Coverage: 2,400 HH,135 brgys, 16 mun., 4 prov. Follows a time series with control and treatment groups Qualitative Study Schedule: 2005 and 2010 Coverage: 20 brgys in 4 mun. in 2 prov. FGDs and KII were conducted to understand changes in the communities as perceived by the people Quantitative Schedule - The Baseline, Midterm and Endline studies were conducted in 2003, 2006 and 2010 respectively Coverage � Overall, the treatment and control areas for the study covered 2,400 households in 135 barangays, 16 municipalities and 4 provinces Research Methods � The quantitative impact evaluation follows a time series control group design, with baseline, midterm and final-project surveys conducted in treatment and control municipalities. The treatment group consists of beneficiary municipalities while the control group is chosen from municipalities within the same sample provinces with similar characteristics to the treatment municipalities, but are not part of the project Qualitative Schedule � The Baseline study was conducted in 2005 while the Endline study was conducted in 2010 Coverage � 10 barangays in 2 municipalities were covered by the study in the province of Albay and another 10 barangays in 2 municipalities in Agusan del Sur Research Methods - Focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted targeting men, women, youth and members of a marginalized sector, mainly indigenous people, because they had the least opportunities for development in these municipalities. The respondents were asked about their views and attitudes toward the state of development of the community, forms of inclusion and exclusion, power and leadership, governance and the political culture, conflict, and people�s participation in governance. The instrument was designed to show snapshots of the lived world of the people in order to understand the changes in their community as perceived by them. Quantitative Schedule - The Baseline, Midterm and Endline studies were conducted in 2003, 2006 and 2010 respectively Coverage � Overall, the treatment and control areas for the study covered 2,400 households in 135 barangays, 16 municipalities and 4 provinces Research Methods � The quantitative impact evaluation follows a time series control group design, with baseline, midterm and final-project surveys conducted in treatment and control municipalities. The treatment group consists of beneficiary municipalities while the control group is chosen from municipalities within the same sample provinces with similar characteristics to the treatment municipalities, but are not part of the project Qualitative Schedule � The Baseline study was conducted in 2005 while the Endline study was conducted in 2010 Coverage � 10 barangays in 2 municipalities were covered by the study in the province of Albay and another 10 barangays in 2 municipalities in Agusan del Sur Research Methods - Focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted targeting men, women, youth and members of a marginalized sector, mainly indigenous people, because they had the least opportunities for development in these municipalities. The respondents were asked about their views and attitudes toward the state of development of the community, forms of inclusion and exclusion, power and leadership, governance and the political culture, conflict, and people�s participation in governance. The instrument was designed to show snapshots of the lived world of the people in order to understand the changes in their community as perceived by them.

23. What is the KC project local poverty reduction impact in KC municipalities? Access of Hhs to basic social and community infrastructure services improved Use of brgy health stations increased Satisfaction over service quality is better in KC than non-KC areas More HHs are accessible yearlong More HHs with access to safe water What is the KC project local poverty reduction impact in KC municipalities? Access of households to basic social and community infrastructure services improved Use of brgy health stations increased Satisfaction over service quality is better in KC than non-KC areas More households are accessible yearlong More households with access to safe water What is the KC project local poverty reduction impact in KC municipalities? Access of households to basic social and community infrastructure services improved Use of brgy health stations increased Satisfaction over service quality is better in KC than non-KC areas More households are accessible yearlong More households with access to safe water

24. What is KC project impact on brgy residents� participation and willingness to participate? Participation of residents in brgy assemblies increased Hhs with membership in local groups or orgns increased, as well as trust levels increased More Hhs in KC munis willing to contribute time and money for barangay/local devt activities What is KC project impact on brgy residents� participation and willingness to participate? Participation of residents in brgy assemblies increased Households with membership in local groups or organizations increased, as well as trust levels increased More households in KC municipalities are willing to contribute time and money for barangay/local devt activities What is KC project impact on brgy residents� participation and willingness to participate? Participation of residents in brgy assemblies increased Households with membership in local groups or organizations increased, as well as trust levels increased More households in KC municipalities are willing to contribute time and money for barangay/local devt activities

25. What is the KC project impact on institutionalization of more PTAR within regular LGU planning and budget process? 95% of MLGUs were able to meet with Barangay representatives with inputs to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) 93% of the barangays covered have committed to sustain the participatory process as part of the barangay sustainability plan What is the KC project impact on institutionalization of more PTAR within regular LGU planning and budget process? 95% of MLGUs were able to meet with Barangay representatives with inputs to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) 93% of the barangays covered have committed to sustain the participatory process as part of the barangay sustainability plan What is the KC project impact on institutionalization of more PTAR within regular LGU planning and budget process? 95% of MLGUs were able to meet with Barangay representatives with inputs to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) 93% of the barangays covered have committed to sustain the participatory process as part of the barangay sustainability plan

26. Thrusts and Areas for Improvement of M&E in KALAHI-CIDSS

27. Increase local and national-level monitoring capacity Strengthen computerized data entry and processing capacity at municipal/ACT/LGU level Strengthen system for data quality checks Municipal, RPMO and national Explore arrangements for web-based data transmission from �municipality or local centers� to KC RPMO KC Management sees the following as areas for improvement in the conduct of monitoring and evaluation Strengthen computerized data entry and processing capacity at municipal/ACT/LGU level Strengthen system for data quality checks at the Municipal, RPMO and national levels Explore arrangements for web-based data transmission from �municipality or local centers� to KC RPMO KC Management sees the following as areas for improvement in the conduct of monitoring and evaluation Strengthen computerized data entry and processing capacity at municipal/ACT/LGU level Strengthen system for data quality checks at the Municipal, RPMO and national levels Explore arrangements for web-based data transmission from �municipality or local centers� to KC RPMO

28. Increase local and national-level monitoring capacity Improve RPMO M&E capacity Training on database management and GIS Training on data analysis, presentation and reporting Establishment of more interactive data system integration between M&E, operations, finance and management Improve RPMO capacity to organize, analyze and report data through: Training on database management and GIS Training on data analysis, presentation and reporting Automated national consolidation and reports generation of monitoring data Improve RPMO capacity to organize, analyze and report data through: Training on database management and GIS Training on data analysis, presentation and reporting Automated national consolidation and reports generation of monitoring data

29. Thrusts for evaluation More third-party/independent evaluation of thematic areas in CDD implementation (e.g., CDD process and devt interventions convergence at the local level, CDD participatory processes and local governance, CDD and disaster risk reduction, CDD and conflict-affected areas, CDD and impact by demographic and socio-economic groups) The Department also intends to focus more on the mining of monitoring data for leads to focused evaluation. Due to the volume of information coming in and the potential to generate new knowledge, KC will conduct more in-depth and specialized studies. Examples of research questions are: What are the opportunities for expanding the application of CDD through adaptation of core operational models to address a diverse range of local development contexts While there is broad interest and initiatives for community development, the approaches tend to be fragmented? How do we effectively bring our partners to a common framework around CDD? What is the appropriate size of the block grant for every barangay? To what extent were the KALAHI-CIDSS and the local development planning and implementation processes integrated/harmonized in the LGUs? What are the �spill-over� effects of the KC initiative in terms of influencing the planning and implementation of other at municipal level. The Department also intends to focus more on the mining of monitoring data for leads to focused evaluation. Due to the volume of information coming in and the potential to generate new knowledge, KC will conduct more in-depth and specialized studies. Examples of research questions are: What are the opportunities for expanding the application of CDD through adaptation of core operational models to address a diverse range of local development contexts While there is broad interest and initiatives for community development, the approaches tend to be fragmented? How do we effectively bring our partners to a common framework around CDD? What is the appropriate size of the block grant for every barangay? To what extent were the KALAHI-CIDSS and the local development planning and implementation processes integrated/harmonized in the LGUs? What are the �spill-over� effects of the KC initiative in terms of influencing the planning and implementation of other at municipal level.

30. Thank You!