KALAHI-CIDSS M&E1st M&E Network ForumNovember 7, 2011

KALAHI-CIDSS Overview

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”

KALAHI-CIDSS Interventions Capacity-building and implementation

support (CBIS) Grants for project planning and

implementation (community-managed) Project management and M&E

KALAHI-CIDSS FeaturesCoverage 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

KALAHI-CIDSS FeaturesFunding allocation for barangay

projectsAllocation of grant funds based on local

prioritization/selection Priority-setting in KC barangay assembly Prioritization at inter-barangay level 3 cycles per municipality

KALAHI-CIDSS FeaturesFunding 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.

KALAHI-CIDSS FeaturesCounterpart 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

Major M&E Questions in KALAHI-CIDSS

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 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

Doing M&E in KC

KC M&E Activities Monitoring

Monitoring Project Field Operations Monitoring of Results Grievance Redress Monitoring

KC M&E Activities Evaluations

Community-based Learning and Evaluation (CBE)

Third party/NGO monitoring External technical and impact evaluation

Structure

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

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?

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)

KC-funded Community Projects

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

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

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

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 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 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

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

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

Increase local and national-level monitoring capacity

Improve RPMO M&E capacity Training on database management and GIS Training on data analysis, presentation and

reportingEstablishment of more interactive data

system integration between M&E, operations, finance and management

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)

Thank You!