OBJECTIVES

BUDGET REFORM - making the national budget more responsive to local needs

LOCAL GOVERNANCE REFORM - providing incentives for local good governance - strengthening the devolution of basic services

delivery

DEMOCRATIC AND EMPOWERMENT PROJECT - creating a conducive environment for people’s

participation - generating demand for good governance at the local level

11

22

33

DEFINITION

An approach to formulating the budget proposal of national gov’t agencies, taking into consideration the development needs of poor cities / municipalities as identified in their respective local poverty reduction action plans (LPRAP) that shall be formulated with strong participation of basic sectors and civil society organizations.

LEGAL BASIS

1. 1. DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1, s. Memorandum Circular No. 1, s.

2012 2012 dated March 8, dated March 8, 2012. 2012. ((Policy Guidelines and Procedures in Policy Guidelines and Procedures in the Implementation of Bottom-up Budgeting the Implementation of Bottom-up Budgeting and Planning for the FY 2013 Budget and Planning for the FY 2013 Budget Preparation)Preparation)

2.2.DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2, s. Memorandum Circular No. 2, s.

2012 2012 dated December dated December 19, 2012.19, 2012. ( Guidelines for the Implementation and ( Guidelines for the Implementation and Monitoring of Bottom-Up Budgeting (BuB) Monitoring of Bottom-Up Budgeting (BuB) Projects in FY 2013)Projects in FY 2013)

COMPARATIVE DATA

2013 2014 2015

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES

12 (DA, DAR, DILG, DEPED, DOE, DENR, DOH,DSWD,

DOT, DTI, TESDA, NEA)

12 (DA, DAR, DILG, DEPED, DOE, DENR, DOH,DSWD,

DOT, DTI, TESDA, NEA)

13 (DA, DAR, DILG, DEPED, DOE, DENR, DOH,DSWD,

DOT, DTI, TESDA, NEA,

DOLE)

OVERSIGHT AGENCIES DBM, DSWD, DILG, NEDA,

NAPC

DBM, DSWD, DILG, NEDA,

NAPC

DBM, DSWD, DILG, NEDA,

NAPC

NO. OF RECIPIENT DIVISIONS

(3) COTABATO PROVINCE,

SARANGANI, SULTAN

KUDARAT (high poverty

incidence)

8 DIVISIONS (TACURONG

CITY NOT INCLUDED)

8 DIVISIONS (TACURONG

CITY NOT INCLUDED)

COMPARATIVE DATA

2013 2014 2015

AMOUNT GRANTED P 47,876,820.00 P 61,004,804.87

?

MENU OF PROGRAMS 1. Construction of School Buildings

2. Repair of Classrooms.

3. WATSAN4. Gulayan sa

Paaralan5. School

Feeding6. School

Furniture7. Innovative

Interventions

1. Repair of Classrooms.

2. WATSAN3. Gulayan sa

Paaralan4. School

Feeding5. School

Furniture6. Innovative

Interventions

1. Repair of Classrooms.

2. Gulayan sa Paaralan

3. School Furniture

4. Innovative Interventions –ABOT ALAM PROGRAM

FUNDING OF BUB

The participating agencies The participating agencies shall give priority to the funding of shall give priority to the funding of poverty reduction projects of the poverty reduction projects of the targeted cities and municipalities targeted cities and municipalities in the allocation of the in the allocation of the department’s budget ceilings. At department’s budget ceilings. At least 10% of the budget for least 10% of the budget for programs and projects included in programs and projects included in the Menu of Programs shall be set the Menu of Programs shall be set aside at the Central Office for the aside at the Central Office for the purpose of funding these projects. purpose of funding these projects.

COVERAGE

2013:

609

2014:

1,233

2015:

1,634

2016:

1,634

2017:

???Cities & Municipalities

StrengtheningSchool-Community and

DepED-LGU Linked Planning & M/E

Local Anti-Poverty Plan

NAPC 609 LGUs & cities

National Government

Agencies

PROGRAMS•direct subsidies•direct service delivery•community-driven development

• Transparency, accountability, citizen participation

• Main task: Implement pro-poor programs

• Main instrument: good governance

I. CONTEXT/RATIONALE

A. DepED-LGU Planning: Engagement of DepED in 2013 LPRAP Process

• In most of the 36 GPH-UNICEF focus LGUs, DepED was not invited

• In areas where DepED was represented, engagement was not so meaningful due to lack of data/information – no district-wide situational analysis

• Hence, UNICEF facilitated a one-day rapid education assessment with almost all school heads and district supervisors starting in one focus area, Malungon in Sarangani in preparation for LPRAP Workshop

I. CONTEXT/RATIONALE

Rapid Education Assessment as part of LPRAP process: Malungon, Saranggani

School level data gathering

Formulation of District Situational Analysis (current

situation of school-aged children , barriers and bottlenecks faced by children, and priority

strategies and programs to address B&B)

Local Poverty Reduction Action Planning

Education Development Framework: Guide in Formulating the District Situational Analysis

CHILDREN’S EDUC’L OUTCOMES (MDGs 2 & 3)

Access – Do all young children aged 3-5, girls and boys, have access to quality ECCD services? Are the 5 year olds ready for school? Are all elementary school-aged children in school? Is the school child-seeking?

Attendance - Are all enrolled children, girls and boys, able to keep regular attendance even in times of emergencies? Achievement – Are all the children actively engaged? Are the teachers able to develop the children’s social, emotional learning skills as well as cognitive skills?

Attainment or Completion- Are all children, girls and boys, able to complete the full cycle of quality elementary education?

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

What is the situation of children in your school/municipality/district?

Using the 4 A’s Framework: •Access•Attendance•Achievement•Attainment (completion)

EXISTING PROGRAMS(Inputs and Outputs)

Are the current programs/projects responsive to meeting MDG 2 and 3 in your school/municipality/district?

Using the 4 A’s Framework:•Access•Attendance•Achievement•Attainment (completion)

BARRIERS AND BOTTLENECKS

Are there barriers which prevent children from participating and are there bottlenecks which prevent schools from serving the children?

Using the 4 A’s Framework:• Access•Attendance•Achievement•Attainment (completion)

STRATEGIES/INTERVENTIONS

What other appropriate interventions can be pursued or how can the current p/p be enhanced to address the barriers/bottlenecks and help the school/municipality/district meet MDG 2 and 3?

Using the 4 A’s Framework:• Access•Attendance•Achievement•Attainment (completion)

Outputs of the Rapid Education Assessment: LPRAP in Malungon, Saranggani

1. Draft Elementary Education Assessment Per District:

• Situation of kinder and elementary school-aged children along 4As

• Major programs/projects implemented last school year

• Reasons why children are not in school/at risk of dropping-out and not learning

• Priority interventions to address the above reasons

2. Three (3) of identified 14 priority interventions were included in the LPRAP (Feeding Program, provision of IMs for Reading and construction of WASH facilities)

II. DepED-UNICEF INTERVENTIONS

A. Refinement of school-community planning tools

1. SIP Guide (Process and Tools)

2. District Consolidation Tool• Allows aggregation of schools data at

district level• Unit of analysis is number and

percentage of children, boys and girls, by school

B. Introduction of refined planning tools in DepED-LGU Planning

School Improvement Planning•Introduction of the school level data gathering tool •Preliminary work for the updating of SIP/AIP and input to draft District SitAn (gathering and organization of data/information using the school level data gathering tool mentioned above)•Field testing of the refined SIP process and tools (in San Felipe CS and Taba-taba ES. Basud_

District Level Synthesis/Analysis

•Based on the school level data, formulation of draft District Situational Analysis (current situation of school-aged children , barriers and bottlenecks faced by children, and priority strategies and programs to address them)

Division Education Development Planning

LGU Annual Investment Plan LPRAPLocal School Board Plan

Provincial/City Development Plan Provincial LSB Plan

LGU/LSB Planning

DepED Planning

EO of July

Quarter 1

Before opening of SY

Interventions in almost all elementary schools and districts of 24 out of 36 focus GPH-UNICEF areas

National level - Refinement of planning and M&E frameworks, processes and tools

III. KEY INSIGHTS & OBSERVATIONS

• There is a weak link between education planning and LGU planning; no sharing of data /information on children between the schools and community/LGU

• LGUs in general do not consider education interventions as (top) priority in addressing poverty; need for more proactive advocacy to and engagement of LGUs in education planning for increased investment in basic education.

III. KEY INSIGHTS & OBSERVATIONS • Generally, there is lack of balance in the

nature of investments in basic education heavy on supply-side (traditional inputs); low investment to address barriers confronted by

children (health and protection issues, effect of disasters and conflict, etc. that will help ensure better retention and performance of disadvantaged children especially in the foundation years (Kinder to Grade 3)

need to complement these with advocacy to parents/communities to enhance demand-side perceptions and commitment to children’s education

Refined process and tools

•The refined planning process and tools ensures availability of comprehensive, child-centered data/information & a more systematic but simple analysis of internal and external environment leading to more responsive interventions. •In the Malungon LPRAP experience, the District Supervisors were better equipped with evidence-based and children-focused plans/proposals.•They felt more empowered because it enhanced their bargaining/negotiating” skills and helped boost their confidence in relating with LGUs during the latter’s plan preparation

III. KEY INSIGHTS & OBSERVATIONS