2017 NATIONAL EVALUATION CAPACITIES CONFERENCE SDGs, Social Protection and Evaluation in the Philippines: Experiences, Challenges and the Way Forward Director Rhodora G. Alday Department of Social Welfare and Development Republic of the Philippines rgalday@dswd.gov.ph #NECdev

BACKGROUND The DSWD is mandated to provide social protection and promote the rights and welfare of poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals, families and communities. The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is the agency mandated to provide social protection and promote the rights and welfare of poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals, families and communities. The agency aims to contribute to poverty alleviation and empowerment through the development of social welfare and development policies, programs, projects and services implemented with or through various government and private intermediaries.   The DSWD works closely with the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), the planning ministry, to ensure that policies and programs on social welfare are aligned with the SDGs. The planning ministry coordinates the political process of the SDG implementation in the Philippines. In cooperation with the statistical authorities, they are developing the localized version of the SDG Indicators, which will be relevant to national priorities and will take into account availability of data sources, especially for the compilation of the disaggregated data.

The Philippines was an active participant to the series of activities leading to the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals. The Philippines were an active participant of multiple initiatives leading to the adoption by the UN General Assembly resolution 70/1 “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and is member of the Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs). This resulted in a high awareness of both politicians and statistical community of the need to properly plan the SDG implementation including proper measuring of the progress towards SDGs and strengthening the data collection framework underpinning such measuring.

Measuring SDGs The PSA Board enjoined all concerned government instrumentalities to provide the necessary data support to monitor the country’s performance vis-à-vis the SDGs based on the indicator framework that shall be determined by the NEDA, PSA and other government agencies. – PSA Resolution No. 4 Series of 2016 Through PSA Resolution No. 4, S. 2016, the Philippine Statistical Authority Board enjoined all government instrumentalities to provide the necessary data support to monitor the country’s per country’s performance vis-à-vis the SDGs based on the indicator framework that was determined by the NEDA, PSA and other government agencies.

And the national government strategy 2040 A strong feature of SDG implementation is the clear identification of the national government vision and strategy aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs. The long term vision is called Ambisyon Natin 2040 (Our Ambition 2040) that was a result of a series of national and local consultations and survey. The long term vision has three pillars – “Matatag, Maginhawa at Panatag na Buhay” or “strongly-rooted, comfortable, and secure life.” The Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022 is the first medium-term plan anchored on this long term vision. It seeks to lay a stronger foundation for more inclusive growth, a high-trust and resilient society, and a globally competitive knowledge economy. The PDP has an accompanying results matrix with performance indicators and targets to measure progress. 2022 RESULTS MATRIX

And the national government strategy 2022 RESULTS MATRIX Strategic Plan 2017-2022 In line with the Philippine Development Plan, the DSWD as an implementing agency of the national government developed its medium-term strategic plan. The role of DSWD in the PDP is in reducing vulnerability of individuals and families, and ensuring their inclusion in efforts to accelerate human capital development. 2022 RESULTS MATRIX

155 97 17 Initial List of Philippine SDG Indicators GOALS 17 TARGETS 97 INDICATORS 155 73 out of 155 indicators are in the Philippine Development Plan Results Matrix 15 out of 155 indicators are on Gender 7 out of 155 indicators are on Social Protection After a series of workshops and meetings led by the planning ministry and the statistical authorities, the Philippines was able to prepare a list of Philippine SDG indicators. The initial list of Philippine SDG indicators was approved by a Resolution (“Approving and Adopting the Initial List of Sustainable Development Goals for Monitoring in the Philippines” -PSA Board Resolution no. 09, Series of 2017). The Philippines was able to identify 155 indicators for 97 SDG targets of the 17 goals. 73 out of 155 indicators are in the PDP Results Matrix 14 out of 155 indicators 7 out of 155 indicators are tagged under Social Protection Supplemental information: Revised SDG Framework developed by IAEG-SDGs adopted by the UNSC at its 48th session on 10 March 2017: 17 SDGs, 169 targets, 232 unique indicators

Summary of SDG Indicators Assessment Tier I – with established methodology , regularly collected Tier II - with established methodology, data not regularly collected Tier III - no established methodology, methodologies are being developed/ tested Based on the results of a series of consultation workshops, the Philippines classified the SDG indicators into tiers. A majority of the indicators are under Tier 1, meaning there is an established methodology and the information is regularly collected Tier II indicators are those with established methodology, but data is not regularly collected Tier III indicators are those with no established methodology, or methodologies are still being developed/tested. Tier II and III indicators are data gaps that definitely require additional resources from government. *Results of the series of consultative/assessment workshops based on the 244 SDG indicators

CHALLENGES TO EVALUATION & SOCIAL PROTECTION IN THE SDG ERA Summary of SDG Indicators Assessment fragmented national development planning absence of a coherent national M&E framework linking budgets to results; social protection as a cross-cutting concern embedding evaluation in social protection programs low demand for evaluations & communicating evaluation results individual and institutional capacity for evaluation fragmented national development planning and programming Unlike other countries (as shared yesterday during the first day of the conference), in the Philippines, the SDG agenda 2030 was not coordinated by a strong political power. The job of ensuring political commitment and implementation of the SDG agenda became the responsibility of the planning ministry, mostly concerned about how to measure the SDGs. There was no strong vision on social protection as a means to achieve the SDGs, especially in “leaving no one behind”. This resulted to fragmented planning among implementing agencies concerning social protection and poverty reduction. The absence of clear strategic direction for social protection poses a challenge not only in ensuring that “no one is left behind” but also for evaluating the contribution of social protection policies and programs in achieving the SDGs. The integrated nature of the SDGs and the complexity of problems require a whole of government approach. Some Philippines SDG indicators are programmatic and does not capture the real essence of the goals. absence of a national M&E framework as basis for systematic and institutionalized conduct of evaluations Another symptom of fragmented planning is the absence of a coherent national M&E framework. While there have been public financial reforms in terms of linking budgets to performance information in agencies, there is no clear guidance for implementing agencies as to how M&E systems should be developed, implemented and aligned with that of the whole national government. The M&E framework will also be a basis for a national evaluation policy. How can we ensure that evaluation results are available in time for planning and budgeting? What framework should we use to know whether we are DOING THE RIGHT THINGS, aside from just doing things right (in our own programs and services)? As an implementing agency, are the combination of outputs that we deliver, the policies we develop and implement, are these the right mix of policies, goods and services that will contribute to overall national development? linking budgets to results Because social protection is a cross-cutting concern that spans several SDG goals and targets (and there is no clear social protection strategy), evaluating effectiveness and efficiency of social protection policies and programs poses a challenge. Does the Philippines have enough resources to achieve its 2030 goals? embedding evaluation in social protection programs Evaluation is still not embedded in a majority of social protection and social welfare programs. Programs with embedded evaluations are mostly those with funding support from development partners. A lot of longstanding programs have yet to articulate their theories of change, let alone set up an effective M&E system. And because some social welfare programs have no project “end” like foreign funded projects, the motivation for such programs to show “results” are low (especially if they are not a priority of the current administration). low demand for evaluations & communicating evaluation results Demand for evaluations from the public is still low. Results of evaluations or the lack of evaluations to provide evidence of results is not commonly discussed in budget deliberations where parochial concerns dominate the discussion. But in some instances when impact evaluation results are actually available, the credibility of the statistics are questioned by the public. So this is a challenge when communicating evaluation results, especially in light of the abundance of opinions in social media, alternative facts and fake news that evaluation results have to compete with as well in public discourse. How can we explain evaluation results most effectively to the public? How can we leverage evaluation results against political propaganda? capacity for evaluation Individual and institutional capacity for evaluations still need to be strengthened. The DSWD is lucky to have received support from various development partners for capability building opportunities for officials and staff on M&E and social protection. However, there is no systematic strategy for capability building for government that has been set-up for M&E. Sustaining and expanding the role of M&E in development requires having to train additional human resources for M&E. Graduate and undergraduate courses on evaluation are only starting to be developed in a few universities in the country.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR EVALUATION Summary of SDG Indicators Assessment Upcoming review of the social protection operational framework and the development of a medium-term social protection plan On-going support from development partners for monitoring and evaluation (UNICEF, 3iE, UNDP, DFAT, World Bank, ADB) Increasing awareness on importance of evaluation in development among national government agencies and CSOs SDGs as a strategy to make political leadership prioritize evaluations to measure results and show accountability

WAY FORWARD Summary of SDG Indicators Assessment engaging elected officials and the international community strengthening multi-stakeholder partnerships systemic reforms towards results-based management WAY FORWARD Summary of SDG Indicators Assessment As we strive to implement results-based management within our Department, we’ve learned that beyond M&E we also have to institute reforms in organizational processes. These are in the areas of performance management, budgeting (linking budgets to outputs and outcomes), and of course the way we do monitoring and evaluation, and feedback. Processes have to be streamlined and enhanced to be inclusive and gender responsive. Given the complexity and interrelatedness of the SDGs, the Department will strengthen its multi-stakeholder partnerships as part of the needed systemic reforms. Some partnerships are already in place however most of them have to be reinvigorated to focus on SDGs. People’s organizations will have to be empowered to demand for more evaluations in government for accountability. What will success look like for our various stakeholders? And lastly, there is the need to engage elected officials for their role in implementing the Agenda 2030, but also encouraging them to support evaluation as tool for development and good governance. The international community will have to be engaged as well for continuous technical assistance for building institutional capacity for evaluation. We have to admit that the role evaluations play in national development relies heavily on how we interact and make use of the powers at play within our scope of work. How do we bring our government closer to the standards of evaluation of the international community while making it relevant to our nation’s people.

Director Rhodora G. Alday Thank you! Director Rhodora G. Alday Department of Social Welfare and Development Republic of the Philippines rgalday@dswd.gov.ph