1. KALAHI-CIDSS M&E 1 st 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”

4. KALAHI-CIDSS Interventions  Capacity-building and implementation support (CBIS)  Grants for project planning and implementation (community-managed)  Project management and M&E

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

12. Doing M&E in KC

13. KC M&E Activities  Monitoring  Monitoring Project Field Operations  Monitoring of Results  Grievance Redress Monitoring

14. KC M&E Activities  Evaluations  Community-based Learning and Evaluation (CBE)  Third party/NGO monitoring  External technical and impact evaluation

15. Structure

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

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)

19. KC-funded Community Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

30. Thank You!