LESSONS LEARNED “Developing technology-based innovation platforms at provincial level: Supporting Bottom Up Budgeting (BuB) projects for 2015 in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao to identify context specific tech-based innovations to support with making the BuB reporting and monitoring more feasible and information accessible to civil society organizations, provincial government and communities at large.” WHITE PAPER, 06 MAY 2016
OVERVIEW, CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES 1 The Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP)2, the umbrella organization of all leagues of local government units and locally elected officials in the country, in partnership with Making All Voices Count (MAVC) and Hivos International, has undertaken this project as part of its commitment as member of the Philippine Open Government Partnership (OGP)3 Steering Committee, and in support of the Bottom Up Budgeting (BuB) implementation with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). This white paper, as an end-of-project knowledge product, aims to: 1. 2. 3.
Present the project’s assessment of BuB reporting and monitoring gaps for further policy actions; Discuss project prototypes developed by local BuB stakeholders to troubleshoot identified reporting and monitoring problems; and, Further explore the opportunities for scaling up and out of the project
The Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines presented this white paper during the Lessons Learned Session of the project on May 3, 2016 at DILG NAPOLCOM Center, Quezon Ave. cor. EDSA, Quezon City. A total of 22 participants attended the said event, with representatives from the member agencies of the National Poverty Reduction Action Team (NPRAT), national civil society organizations (CSOs) and member leagues of ULAP. 2 For more information about the project, contact ULAP Executive Director Czarina Medina-Guce at ulapnatsec@gmail.com, (+632) 5346787 or 89. 3 Open Government Partnership (OGP) is an international initiative launched in 2011 to provide an international platform for domestic reformers committed towards making their governments more open, accountable and responsive to citizens. The Philippines is one of the nine founding members of OGP and one of the 65 participating countries to the initiative to date. In all of these countries, government and civil society are working together to develop and implement open government reforms. The Philippines, for its 2013-2015 OGP Action Plan, has included the BuB implementation as one of its commitments. BuB (then called the Grassroots Participatory Budgeting) was awarded a Gold Citation (3rd place) in the Open Government Partnership Awards on September 24, 2014 in New York City. 1
Page 1 of 25
BuB is an approach to preparing national government budget (through its agencies or, more significantly recently, through direct downloads of funds to local governments) which take into consideration the development needs of poor cities and municipalities as identified in their respective Local Poverty Reduction Action Plans (LPRAPs) that are formulated with strong participation of basic sector organizations and other civil society organizations 4 However, challenges were identified in the implementation of BuB in terms of timeliness and efficiency. Through consultations with Local Government Units (LGUs), the following challenges were identified:
Provincial governments are not involved in BUB which cause non-harmonized and redundant municipal projects budgeted by the provincial governments that were also budgeted by BUB. CSOs report insufficient citizen’s participation in monitoring of the implementation of BUB projects and programs. There are delays in the downloading of tranches of the funds to recipient LGUs partly due to the late submission of project reports. LGUs face difficulties in complying with the reporting due to the complex and numerous requirements that are needed.
In response to these challenges, ULAP sought to innovate on possible solutions with BuB reporting as an entry point, because:
Finding innovative solutions for more efficient BuB reporting allows LGUs to clear and receive project fund tranches faster, thus implementing projects faster. BuB reporting (and receiving funds) solves the delays and challenges in upholding contracts of suppliers implemeting BuB projects.
Partially lifted from the Joint Memorandum Circular of DBM, DILG, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), 2013 4
Page 2 of 25
BuB reporting inefficiencies take toll on LGU manpower. Engineers and accountants, among other technical staff spend unreasonable amounts of time filling out different templates across agencies that contain the same kind of data requirements. BuB reporting processes have impracticalities in terms of submission, particularly for LGUs that are far away from provincial or city centers where local NGA offices are. Solving these impracticalities will also mean less overhead expenses for the LGUs who have to travel far to submit their documents.
Leveraging on the issues on BuB reporting, MAVC and ULAP project’s key objective is to facilitate the use of technology-based innovations to improve relationships and increase opportunities for feedback loops between citizens and governments, with the OpenBuB portal as the basis for reporting, monitoring, and feedback of local BuB implementers and partners. In particular, the project sought to: 1.
2.
Build capacity of provincial local government units (PLGUs) to use the Open BuB platform (and other emergent innovative platforms) for feedback and data gathering; processing of information into policy and management inputs; and evidence-informed policy making; and, Build capacity of non-government/civil society members of the municipal Local Poverty Reduction Teams (LPRATs) to maximize the Open BuB platform (and other emergent innovative platforms) for reporting of status of BuB projects; and to contribute to decision and response-generation of the PLGU and Regional Poverty Reduction Action Teams (RPRATs) on issues and concerns identified from the grassroots.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND INSIGHTS GATHERED ULAP team initially conducted a series of consultations and dialogues with partner national government agencies, such as the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). These consultations were meant to: 1. 2. 3.
Secure the buy-in of partner agencies on the project and the target outputs/outcomes; Develop the supporting policies for the revised guidelines and mechanisms for BUB implementation; and Learn more about the OpenBuB portal, and its use in the policy-making of the concerned agencies.
Thereafter, the ULAP team conducted Design-Thinking Workshops and Consultation on BuB reporting and monitoring, with the Provincial Government and local Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) who are members of LPRAT, as the primary target participants in the identified sites. The workshop aimed to creatively find solutions to problems with the intent of improving the BuB reporting and monitoring process at the local level. It specifically aimed to find or create technology-based platforms at the provincial level to improve relationships and increase opportunities for feedback loops between citizens and governments.
Page 3 of 25
The sites identified per island cluster were the provinces of Abra for Luzon, Cebu for Visayas and Surigao del Norte for Mindanao. These provinces were selected as they were the first ones who were able to forge a partnership through a Memorandum of Agreement with their municipalities, which do not have GFH or explicitly sought the assistance of the province due to the lack of capacity to implement the BuB projects. This was done to build capacities and strengthen the roles among local governments as harmonizers of BuB implementation. Monitoring Visits to the different sites were done to conduct assessments on how the Provincial Government and the province’s CSOs utilize the BUB portal after participating in the Design-Thinking Workshop were also conducted. The visits aimed to: 1. 2. 3.
Vet the BUB 911 hotline prototype (which the local actors chose for themselves during the workshops) that will be housed in the Provincial Government; Identify the next steps to realize the prototype; and, Strengthen the buy-in from the provincial and municipal governments and CSOs.
However, it is worthy to note that the monitoring visits design was altered to give way to other issues and concerns of the local stakeholders identified during the Design Thinking Workshop.
The interactions and prototyping work with the LPRATs gave insight that the core concerns about BuB reporting at this point of the program are:
Page 4 of 25
What to report: This means that the LGUs and CSOs are unsure about/do not know answers to basic concerns about the templates and the requirements, which apparently change per NGA implementing BuB projects. How to report: The templates vary, and there is no clear way to verify information. The LPRATs also expressed insufficient capacity to translate the massive amounts of data they gather into actionable policy and program suggestions that they in the LPRAT, or with the provincial government, or with the NGAs can address quickly. Who to report to: This means that there is no support system/helpline available that caters to a variety of feedback from CSOs and even LGUs themselves, about reaching focal persons per NGA implementing BuB project. The LPRATs also expressed lack of capacity to communicate and negotiate with NGA or LGUs of higher authority, and they end up complying with unclear instructions just to be able to move the process of reporting.
With these insights, the ULAP team redesigned the MAVC project to respond to the concerns through the following: [1] Development of a BuB “Almanac” This is envisioned as a compilation of the list of reporting requirements that LPRATs need to submit per national government agency. As discussed in the previous sections, LGUs and CSOs both are burdened with having to produce and compile different sets of documents for different national government agencies, depending on which one the project is listed under from the BuB Project Menu. ULAP envisioned the Almanac as a consolidation of all reporting checklists and templates for BuB projects for 2015-2016, which should be able to assist BuB focal persons and the implementing LPRATs answer their reporting FAQs. [2] Consensus-building and systems assistance in the development of province-level BuB hotlines/911/desks Called by different names by participants in the workshops, the idea of setting up a helpline that will cater to questions and feedback from both municipalities and CSOs has constantly been proposed as a prototype. The form of the helpline may differ for each province – online, phone-based, SMS-based – and this becomes part of the critical experiment that will generate insights as to what queries do implementers and communities forward with regard to their BuB projects, and what response systems must be in place in order to answer them. [3] Capacity-building interventions The design of the monitoring visits discussed above was altered after the Design Thinking workshops to give way to capacity development sessions to assist the participants in the skills and knowledge needs that they identified. The topics identified for these capacity development sessions were data insight mining/data management, additional project management sessions (on top of what has been already given to the CSOs as part of the national program), and communication and negotiation skills, among others. The diagram and table below summarizes the prototypes that were forwarded by the LGU and CSO participants from LPRATs during the Design Thinking workshops.
Page 5 of 25
Project Site Province of Abra
Province of Cebu
Province of Surigao del Norte
Table 1. Design Thinking Workshop Outputs Prototype Names Description A.B.R.A. (Access to BUB Abra’s own version of the OpenBuB website which Reports for Abra) is a compilation of all projects in Abra compiled for the ease of all Abranons BUB Desk (Provincial & The setting up of a team to specifically Municipal) accommodate to all matters relating to BuB “C.E.B.U.” – (Collective Compilation of a BuB Help Desk, application of Efforts for BUB B.E.S.T. and a capacity building on Geo Tagging Undertakings) “S.U.G.B.U.” – (Sustainable Setting up of an effective focal point system where & Unified Gains of BuB monitoring tools are simplified and unified plus Undertakings) the establishment of CSO monitors as well BUB Reporting 911 Setting up of hotlines for civil society and interLGU feedback for BUB reporting and implementation BUB Reporting Compilation A consolidated list of BUB reporting requirements (“Reporting Bible”) from the national government agencies
Page 6 of 25
LESSONS LEARNED PER PROJECT COMPONENT The target impact of the entire project is the improved relationships and increased opportunities for feedback loops between citizens and governments. In terms of the improving relationships, the theory of change is that when the local government and the CSO progressively work together, the fabric of governance is improved. On the other hand, increasing opportunities for feedback loops means that the CSOs can provide meaningful input to the LGUs and that the latter can provide reports to the former. The objectives of the project can be divided into three key dimensions, namely Governance, Technology, and Capacity-building. The discussions on the Lessons Learned, after the implementation of the project, will revolve around these three key dimensions.
[1] Governance Dimension The target was to look for or develop policies, platforms, and systems to facilitate the use of technology-based innovations to improve relationships and increase opportunities for feedback loops between citizens and governments, with the OpenBuB portal as the basis for reporting, monitoring, and feedback of local BuB implementers and partners. The project aimed to assess the effectivity of current BUB reporting mechanisms and to explore the impact of a more efficient and effective BUB reporting mechanism. The most successful output of the Governance dimension is the Executive Order (EO) that the Province of Surigao Del Norte issued to create the Provincial BUB Implementation Unit and Technical Working Group under the Engineer’s Office. Personnel have been hired on a contract of service basis, aside from the identified point persons per provincial government office. With ULAP team’s recommendation, CSO participation was added to the EO. The CSO members were provided honorarium and allowances for Page 7 of 25
meals and transportation costs. This was commended by Richard Villacorte, the project manager of BuB from DILG-PMO. He said that “Surigao del Norte should be the model province in creating a BuB office.” In the province of Cebu, there was an existing project monitoring and reporting system that the provincial government was utilizing for its own projects, specifically for disaster risk and reduction management. The existing system will be utilized to include the monitoring and reporting for BuB projects. For the province of Abra, the strategy was to set-up an inter-office collaboration between the Provincial Engineering Office and the Provincial Planning and Development Office that shall oversee the BuB implementation, monitoring and reporting. In the last monitoring visit of the project, ULAP conducted a survey among members of the LPRATs in the sites to assess and establish the baseline of the relationships of the BuB stakeholders in the project sites. The survey measured the CSOs relationship with LPRAT members which include the LGU (provincial and municipal) as well as fellow CSOs, and vice versa for the LGUs. The table below provides a summary of the answers of the CSOs and LGUs in the questions of the survey. (Please refer to Survey Report for complete details and statistical runs). Table 2. Summary of Survey Results QUESTION MODE CSO RESPONDENTS [1] My MLGU accounts for the CSO agenda in our LPRAT planning process. [2] My MLGU follows LPRAT convening protocols. [3] My MLGU is able to respond to my/my sector’s queries about BuB projects. [4] My MLGU responds to my/my sector’s concerns in a timely manner. [5] I have confidence in my mayor to implement BuB projects. [6] I have confidence in the capacity of my LGU to deliver BuB projects. [7] I have confidence in the LPRAT as a participatory platform. [8] My/my sector’s relationship with MLGU is better because of LPRAT. [9] I gain better understanding of the challenges and issues faced by LGUs because of LPRAT. [10] I am a better CSO leader/representative because of my LPRAT experience with LGUs. [11] My MLGU does not provide a conducive environment for dialogue and participatory governance. [12] My MLGU uses verifiable, measurable proof when forwarding agenda. [13] My MLGU’s agenda is politically acceptable to the communities we represent. [14] My MLGU performs well in project planning. [15] My MLGU performs well in project implementation. [16] My MLGU performs well in project monitoring. [17] My MLGU performs well in project reporting. [18] LGU representatives in LPRAT have good relationships among each other. [19] My MLGU cannot perform its responsibilities in the BUB process. [20] I am satisfied with the performance of other CSO representatives in our LPRAT. [21] I understand the issues my MLGU encounters in BuB reporting. [22] My MLGU is open about issues encountered in implementing BuB projects. [23] I can help my MLGU to address BuB reporting delays. [24] I am willing to help my MLGU to address BuB reporting delays.
PERCENTAGE
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
62.5 48.2 50.0 55.4 83.9 75.0 60.7 62.5
Strongly Agree
82.1
Strongly Agree
73.2
Strongly Disagree
60.7
Strongly Agree
42.9
Strongly Agree
50.0
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
78.6 75.0 73.2 71.4 73.2 46.4
Strongly Agree
64.3
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
62.5 76.8 62.5 76.8 Page 8 of 25
QUESTION [25] MLGU does not explain why BUB project reporting is delayed. [26] I understand why the PLGU is implementing some BuB projects. [27] I understand the role of the PLGU in implementing our BuB projects. [28] I have confidence in my governor to implement BuB projects. [29] I have confidence in the capacity of my PLGU to assist our MLGU in implementing BuB projects. [30] My/my sector’s relationship with PLGU is better because of PLGU involvement in BuB implementation. [31] I do not see any value added for the PLGU to be involved in the BUB process.
MODE
PERCENTAGE
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
28.6 41.1 58.9 87.5
Strongly Agree
91.1
Strongly Agree
76.8
Strongly Disagree
50.0
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS 1. I gain better understanding of sectoral and community issues through CSOs in LPRAT. 2. CSOs in LPRAT has positive added value to the LPRAT discussions. 3. CSOs in LPRAT directly engage LGU when they have concerns about BuB projects. 4. CSOs in LPRAT are antagonistic when talking to government. 5. My work in government is more effective because I work with CSOs in LPRAT. 6. I am confident that LGU can address queries of CSOs in LPRAT about BuB projects. 7. I am confident that LGU can respond to CSO issues in a timely fashion. 8. CSOs in LPRAT follow guidelines and expected roles in the BUB process. 9. CSOs in LPRAT provide actionable comments in the LPRAT discussions. 10. CSOs in LPRAT display confidence in my LGU's capacity to deliver projects. 11. The CSOs in LPRAT use verifiable, measurable proof when forwarding their agenda. 12. The CSOs in LPRAT increase acceptability of projects in communities. 13. The CSOs in LPRAT contribute to project planning. 14. The CSOs in LPRAT contribute to project implementation. 15. The CSOs in LPRAT contribute to project monitoring. 16. The CSOs in LPRAT contribute to project reporting. 17. The CSOs in LPRAT have good relationships with other CSOs. 18. The CSOs in LPRAT represent the CSOs/sectors only physically. They do not contribute to the BUB process. 19. The CSOs in LPRAT understand the issues LGU encounters in BuB reporting delays. 20. I am confident to discuss issues on BuB reporting delays with CSOs in LPRAT. 21. The CSOs in LPRAT can help LGU to address BuB reporting delays. 22. I am willing to have CSOs help LGU to address BuB reporting delays. 23. The CSOs in LPRAT are disinterested about issues on BUB reporting delays. 24. I am satisfied with the performance of other LGU representatives in our LPRAT. 25. I understand why the PLGU is implementing some BUB projects. 26. I understand the role of the PLGU in implementing our BUB projects. 27. I have confidence in our governor to implement BUB projects. 28. I have confidence in the capacity of my PLGU to assist our MLGU in implementing BuB projects. 29. Our MLGU's relationship with PLGU is better because of PLGU's involvement in BUB implementation. 30. I do not see any value added for the PLGU to be involved in the BUB process.
Strongly Agree
69.8
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
86.0 76.7
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
25.6 72.1 79.1
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
60.5 69.8 51.2 58.1 51.2
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
62.8 79.1 67.4 69.8 69.8 65.1 46.5
Strongly Agree
41.9
Strongly Agree
72.1
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
55.8 58.1 34.9 79.1
Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
76.7 76.7 83.7 81.4
Strongly Agree
81.4
Strongly Disagree
48.8
Page 9 of 25
Running cross-tabulations among significantly associated statements, the results of the survey showed the following:
CSO representatives are more inclined to collaborate with the LGUs in terms of providing solutions to BUB reporting delays if they see the satisfactory performance of LGUs in terms of their contribution in implementing concrete BUB projects and in terms of promoting the political acceptability of their agenda in the community. It is easier for CSO representatives to understand BUB reporting delays if they know the dynamics of LGUs (intra-sectoral relationship), and they’re also more comfortable in discussing these delays and pitching possible solutions when they are assured that the LGU provides them with verifiable data (evidence-based). LGU-CSO Relationship correlates to a positive response in BUB Reporting Alignment. This suggests that when LGU representatives feel the CSO’s active engagement through concrete contributions in implementing BUB projects, they are more open to discussing their shortcomings (BUB reporting delays) to them under the assumption that they will be able to understand the cause of these delays. When LGUs feel that CSOs directly engage with them during LPRAT discussions, the more trust they give them in terms of their capacity to help LGUs in providing solutions to BUB reporting delays, thus making them more open to collaborations. LGUs are more likely to trust that collaboration with CSOs is beneficial when they see the positive contributions of CSOs in implementing BUB project across all phases. Furthermore, it’s also easier for them to see this collaboration as a possibility when they know that their processes are in sync with what CSOs employ (e.g., the use of verifiable evidences in forwarding agenda, contributing to political acceptability of their agenda in the community, etc.). LGUs (particularly in the municipal level) trust in the capacity of CSOs and PLGUs with regard to their roles in BUB implementation. These findings have a good connotation proposes that the design to have different entities work together to implement BUB projects works better.
Key learning points for the Governance dimension are the following: [a] Capacity, in terms of structure and personnel, was asymmetrical among the different provinces. Not all provinces had the same capacity to implement BuB projects efficiently. The challenge that can be seen from this is establishing the baseline of capacities in order to efficiently and effectively implement the projects, meaning determining the qualities of a fully-functional local government. [b] There is no existing mechanism in national or local government that accounts for inter-LGU level counterparting for the BuB projects. There are instances that the provincial government provides the necessary counter-part in behalf of the municipalities. This has implications to harmonizing work among LGU levels because so far, national agencies and relevant stakeholders are blind as to how counterparts are negotiated between PLGUs (represented by the Governor) and the MLGU (represented by the Mayor). At a time when LGUs are challenged to manage large funds for BuB project implementation, insight about counterparting strategies and mechanisms
Page 10 of 25
among LGU levels allows national decision-makers to assess effectiveness of current policies and guidelines. There is also concern that, while BuB makes local governance more participatory and more evidence-informed, lack of insight on inter-LGU counterparting opens spaces for political preferences, i.e., governors may giving higher counterparts to mayors who are political allies. This is an area for transparency and accountability to the participating citizens in the BuB process. [c] In terms of political realities, buy-in of the Local Chief Executives (LCEs) all throughout the project played a big part in the effective and efficient implementation and production of more sustainable results (Refer to Interim Narrative Report January 2016 for further discussion.). This was apparent, especially in the case of Surigao Del Norte, wherein, both the provincial and municipal LCEs agreed to create innovative platforms and establish them through proper legislation in order to push through with the implementation of BuB projects, and sustain them.
[2] Technology Dimension The target was to look for or develop info-mediating technologies that shall serve as platform for engagement for LGUs and CSOs utilizing the OpenBuB portal, as a platform for national government agencies to consolidate reports of BuB project implementation generated from the Regional Poverty Reduction Action Team (RPRAT). Exploration of technologies that was viable for implementation and meaningful use in the local level was done, with considerations on the realities of geography, infrastructure, resources, and profile of citizenry. Furthermore, the project aimed to develop technologies that will aid in evidence-informed policy making. In order to achieve this objective, the ULAP team conducted Design-Thinking Workshops and Consultation for BuB implementation. Local Poverty Reduction Action Team (LPRAT) members from both the municipal government and CSOs, as well as, representatives from the provincial government were invited to participate. The workshops aimed to creatively find solutions to problems, with the intent of improving the BUB reporting and monitoring process at the local level. It also aimed to find or create technologybased platforms at the provincial level to improve relationships and increase opportunities for feedback loops between citizens and government. During the workshops, participants were required to empathize with the beneficiaries, define the problem, ideate solutions that will lead to the creation of prototype projects and programs, and test the prototypes. Under the Technology dimension, one output was the Usability Study initially produced by the ULAP team regarding the OpenBUB portal. The study assessed the OpenBuB portal as an engagement tool for Page 11 of 25
CSOs and individuals to monitor the projects in their locality. The study assessed the portal as an engagement tool for CSOs and individuals to monitor the projects in their locality. The assessment was aimed to serve as basis for the design thinking workshops and technical trainings that will be conducted in three provinces and its selected municipalities to develop and implement info-mediation technologybased platforms so that CSOs and citizens can further dialogue and work with government on BuB projects. The study focused on the portal’s front end and looked into the features available to regular accounts. Back end features or those only available to regional directors and administrators were not included. The portal had a feedback feature wherein the citizens which can access the contents of the website especially on the status of the projects can provide their comments. However, when the team tried to replicate the study during the 1st field activity which was the Design Thinking Workshop, the participants weren’t able to open the website due to slow and intermittent internet connection and lack of internet infrastructure in the localities. More so, most of them weren’t aware of the existence and purpose of the OpenBuB portal. The team tried again during the 1 st monitoring visits but had to let go of the attempt due to inadequate bandwidth to load the website. Given these, the project team consulted with the OpenBuB Portal Secretariat in DBM. It revealed that the Portal, though with potential for upgrade, is currently not tailored for local use with lack of back-end support to accommodate public reports. It mainly functions as monitoring tool for DBM, DILG and other NGAs on BuB projects. With the aforementioned realities, the project team decided it best to let go of replicating the study in the current project sites. But the team will keep in mind its current and potential features for future endeavors. Understanding the nature and objectives of the Open BuB portal revealed that the platform was really meant for the national agencies to access to an overview of, and aggregated representation, of the implementation of BuB projects all across the country. The platform was not meant to be a citizen feedback platform, but the option is available nonetheless though not a priority. Nonetheless, according to Mr. Richard Villacorte, there are still on-going plans on improving the portal as a whole.
Page 12 of 25
Another output for the Technology dimension of the project was the development of the province-level BuB hotlines/911/desks. It was a helpline that will cater to questions and feedback from both municipalities and CSOs regarding BuB. It will need a focal person/office duly established for such purpose and utilize any mode of communication that will be most effective, considering the local context of each project site. It also housed the BuB Directory, which will indicate the focal person/offices that will appropriately cater to questions and feedback regarding BuB, depending on which level of the BuB process is concerned. The form of the helpline differed for each of the sites of the project, which were envisioned during the Design-Thinking Workshops. For the province of Surigao Del Norte, a web-based hotline was proposed to be developed. For the province of Cebu, a mobile-based hotline was suggested. Abra, on the other hand, was still determining which platform of engagement they will utilize, given the constraints in financial and logistical capacity of the province. At the presentation in the Lessons Learned Session, the establishment of the BuB Hotlines is supported by Richard Villacorte of DILG-PMO. He said, “Having a clear grievance and reporting machinery at the ground can produce hundreds of cases and reports in a month’s time. It is something that is worth celebrating as it shows the success of the BuB in terms of wide-ownership.” Moreover, this complements the direction being set by DILG for the provinces to fully assume their oversight over all its component cities and municipalities. The BuB focal person from the National Electrification Agency (NEA), Luisa Hernandez, praised the BuB Hotline, given that it lessens the load of the national government in addressing queries on BuB from stakeholders in the local level.
Page 13 of 25
The last output was the development of the BuB Almanac. Given the failed attempt to replicate the Usability Study in the localities, the project team and participants decided to let go of the concept of the OpenBuB Portal as platform for government and citizen feedbacking. Thus, the project team and Design Thinking Workshop participants decided to focus on what is now called the “BuB Almanac� which is a compilation of the list of reporting requirements that LPRATs needed to submit per National Government Agency (NGA) implementing BuB projects at the local level. It is list of requirements and templates that should be able to assist BuB focal persons/office and the implementing LPRATs in answering their reporting FAQs. The goal was to streamline all the information into one consolidated list that can be easily accessed by LGUs and CSOs through the OpenBuB platform, DILG websites, and/or other possible platforms. By doing this, the PLGU will be able to maximize info-mediation processes among the different stakeholders. During the development of the almanac, many issues became apparent, foremost of which was the differences in the implementing and reporting requirements per NGA. Some of the agencies even had a different set of requirements per region despite implementing the same BuB projects. This caused a lot of confusion for BuB focal persons/offices at the local level, as to what proper documents to submit to regional NGA offices for implementation, and especially, for monitoring and evaluation. As a result, many BuB projects were delayed due to inefficiencies in reporting. Furthermore, much of the energy and efforts of limited BuB personnel at the local level were directed towards complying with the audit reports instead of implementing projects more effectively. Thus, BuB projects were mostly not implemented effectively and sustained. At the Lessons Learned Session, Grace Marzan, the BuB focal person from the Department of Tourism recommended the mainstreaming of the all the requirements and templates for BuB reporting and more so that the requirement under the BuB guidelines should be lessened. Related to the differences in the implementing and reporting requirements per NGA, are the Commission on Audit (COA) issues that were raised during the National Poverty Reduction Action Team (NPRAT) meeting last March 17, 2016. NGAs implementing BuB projects pointed out that COA has not yet passed a resolution to support BuB implementation and prevent tedious liquidation processes. In their defense, NGAs reasoned out that this causes the inefficiencies in reporting that local BuB personnel mostly Page 14 of 25
complained about. COA has not yet released guidelines on a uniform accounting mechanism for BuB, therefore, different interpretations of COA rulings for fund transfer were being applied. This was raised again during the Lessons Learned Session by Grace Marzan of the Department of Tourism. DILG-PMO’s Richard Villacorte seconded this stating, “Unless the COA changes its rules or add additional personnel, nothing can be done especially in the next years wherein BuB Barangay shall be implemented.” However, it was suggested that dealing with this issue should be proactive rather than dwelling on the lapses. The issues should be crystallized into recommendations or proposals that can be forwarded to COA for them to consider in their system. Annalyn Flores, Executive Director of the League of Vice-Governors of the Philippines (LVGP) proposed for a policy that shall fast-track the hiring of personnel of COA and to conduct negotiation dialogues with them with regard to the implementation of BuB. Furthermore, agencies were prevented from hiring personnel for BuB that could increase the rate of implementation for projects at the local level because of current COA guidelines. Therefore, there was a need for the streamlining of liquidation processes under the BuB implementation by COA for NGAs to efficiently implement BuB projects and help make the lives of local BuB personnel easier. At end of project, the status of the BuB Almanac is as follows:
The checklists and templates for BuB projects for 2015-2016 are completed, except for four agencies because at the national level, there are only two reporting documents that the RPRATs need to submit. This means that the other documents are already filtered at the regional level. Given the limited time and resources, the team was not able to complete these documents, despite continuous coordination with the regional offices.
The first draft of the BuB Almanac was vetted with project site LPRATs during the last monitoring visits. Municipal BuB focal persons and engineers were very appreciative of the technology. They said that the Almanac will be very useful to them in terms of confidence in preparing the reports, while maximizing limited human resources and ensuring the timelines of the report. Thus, this leads to avoidance of the delays in tranche downloaded to the LGUs and subsequent implementation. They, however, expressed their request that all requirements, core requirements at the least, be harmonized among all NGAs implementing BuB. Local CSOs were also glad that their LGU counterparts will be aided by the Almanac, they however requested for a CSO kit that will assist them in explaining the BuB process and reporting back to their constituents. They said that they are very much aware of the difficulties in reporting because project status and challenges are presented as updates during LPRAT meetings.
The current BuB Almanac is on a hard-copy version, because the national government agencies which submitted their reporting templates were given to the team in printed PDF file and there are no existing copies of these reporting templates that are available online. Moving forward, the team has already discussed with DILG-PMO to create a soft copy of these reporting templates in an open format that will be distributed to all LPRATS, both in online (collated in a google drive) and offline (USB storage device).
Page 15 of 25
The work on the BuB Almanac for vertical integration with DILG-PMO operations will continue beyond the timeline of the project. Key learning points for the Technology dimension are the following: [a] Technology is purposive in an implementation perspective (Refer to Project Interim Report September 2015 for initial discussion). It was rarely able to cater to varying levels of capacity and access of potential users-at-large because of pragmatic considerations. This meant that technology is not neutral and cannot just be used as a viable tool for inclusive governance, because every platform was created with a specific set of objectives in mind. An advocacy must, therefore, be put in place for technologies used as reference for policy-making, which should reflect and be more sensitive to inclusiveness. The implication for moving forward in this regard was two-fold. First, that OpenBuB designers and managers needed evidence to support the advocacy of making the technology more inclusive and considerate of different capacities and skills from the localities. Second, that the info-mediating platforms needed to be more responsive to local realities. [b] Feedbacking mechanisms need to be closer to the ground where the voices come from. ULAP, throughout the implementation of the project, also learned that the largely centralized approach of resolving complaints is counterproductive to the available feedback mechanisms for more efficient resolution of community concerns and issues (Refer to Project Interim Report January 2016 for initial discussion). The feedback mechanisms of BuB were not designed to distribute the powers to troubleshoot the concerns and issues raised with regard to the project. The Grievance Redress Mechanism was only lodged at the regional and national levels. The process shall take a lot of time and shall cause delays in solving small-scale issues, since the system was designed to forward the issue to the top, and then, wait for directives as to what will be done regarding the said issue. Time spent on waiting for directives could have been spent for the implementation of the BuB project, if the issue was immediately resolved at the local level. Furthermore, the grievance mechanism at the regional level is yet to be established and the protocols governing such are still being drafted, making the establishment of the BuB Hotline/911/desks at the local level more necessary (Refer to ULAP’s OGP National Summit 2016 Report for full documentation on the grievance mechanism of the BuB program).
Page 16 of 25
[3] Capacity-Building Capacity-building activities were not intended to be conducted at the initial design of the project. However, given the demand from the participants from the sites from the Design Thinking workshops, ULAP decided to reprogram the project activities to cater to the expressed need. The ULAP team conducted capacity development sessions on Negotiations & Communications, and Data Interpretation & Management to assist the local actors in BUB implementation, according to the skills and knowledge needs that they themselves identified during the initial conduct of the Design-Thinking Workshops and subsequent monitoring visits to the project sites. As an output for the Capacity-building dimension, Learning Assessment (pre- and post-test) were conducted, categorized based on familiarity per subtopic and session. The evaluation had a range of 1 to 5, with 5 being “extremely confident” and 1 being “least confident”. The table below shows the overall results of the participants’ responses from all three sites. (See report for detailed statistical runs.) Table 3: Overall Capacity-Building Pretest and Posttest Results STATEMENTS PRETEST POSTTEST Negotiations and Communications Workshop [1] I know how to get to understand the issues Confident Enough Very Confident and concerns of the people/groups I work with [2] I know how to prioritize people/groups I need Confident Enough Very Confident to work with [3] I know how to talk to people in authority Confident Enough Very Confident [4] I know how to deal with emotionally-charged Confident Enough Very Confident conversations [5] I know how to cope with conflict-heavy issues Confident Enough Very Confident within conversations Data Interpretation and Management Workshop [1] I know how to explore and analyze my data Confident Enough Confident Enough [2] I am able to create visualizations from my Confident Enough Very Confident data [3] I know how to properly identify my audience Very Confident Very Confident [4] I can identify what medium is best for my Confident Enough Confident Enough visualization and audience [5] I can create a story from my data to make a Confident Enough Confident Enough compelling case Results of the tests suggest that there is a qualitative change in the respondents’ self-assessment of their level of confidence in matters concerning negotiations and conflict management. Through the Capacity Development workshops, the respondents claim that they are “very confident” with their negotiations Page 17 of 25
skills compared to being only “confident enough” in their skills in interpersonal communication skills (essential in negotiations) prior to the workshops. The responses for data interpretation and management are technically positive, but respondents have only noted change in self-assessment of their skill in creating visualization from data. Key learning points for the Capacity-Building dimension are the following: [a] Current assessment of LGU capacities is always programmatic, meaning they are based on what they need to deliver. This means that most of the time, capacities built among LGU staff and structure are based on demand or requirements of programs implemented, but there is no comprehensive assessment on what a fully-functional and capable LGU looks like. This is not necessarily a negative thing, but is treated with an appreciation of the journey of local governments in the Philippines, since the 1991 Local Government Code was passed. For the past 10 years, national policy granting financial access and greater autonomy to local governments has been unprecedented, given the introduction of BuB and its complementary programs (KALSADA, Barangay BuB, and all other direct download-funded projects under the LGSF). Now, local governments are measured for performance, transparency, and inclusive participation in its governance processes, with financial incentives on the line. This further means that the demand to conceptualize effectiveness and efficiency of local governments is at an all-time high, with local governments continuously experimenting and innovating for best ways to achieve desired outputs and outcomes. The implication of which is that building capacities in LGUs have to go beyond the programmatic perspective, and begin looking at holistic systems and personnel capacities. The ULAP team attributes programmatic capacity-building to the LGU struggle of not exceeding the maximum amounts allowable to spend on regular personnel ("Personnel Services” cap), which hinders LGUs to invest on highly-trained and technically-flexible manpower. Insights such as these open policy directions and possibilities in the continuous pursuit of achieving the promise of the Local Government Code for genuine autonomy and performance for LGUs. These kinds of conversations are encapsulated in ULAP’s key advocacies, #ParaSaBayan: Pagtataguyod ng Makabuluhang Adhikain ng Pamamahalang Lokal (Pursuing the Meaningful Agenda of Local Governance), in line with the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Local Government Code in October 2016. [b] For the CSOs, they are trained to monitor and draft reports however, they lack in the capacity of presenting the reports and negotiating their agenda with the local government. While there is an innovative approach of bringing the community in the process of planning and monitoring of projects, the participation of CSOs are self-reported as incomplete due to lack of negotiating capacity. The purpose of including the CSOs in the budgeting process was to have a representative from the community who shall voice out the needs and concerns of the people, in general, and serve as a check-and-balance in the implementation of the projects. The mechanism for participative governance was already in place and the CSOs were actively participating in the discussions
Page 18 of 25
through the LPRAT meetings. Unfortunately, the lack of a clear definition of CSO roles and responsibilities limited the scope of their participation. The guidelines did not provide the extent of their decision-making powers, if there was any, or at least the influence they had on the decisions. It can be argued that the capacity to influence group decisions was not something that project guidelines or Memorandum Circulars can create. What the BuB mechanism enabled was a regular mechanism, through the LPRATs, where CSOs will find themselves a place in the discussion table. But as per the Design Thinking workshops, the CSOs pointed out that they find their participation incomplete not because of lack of project management skills, but because they lack “negotiating capacity” (hence the project response for Negotiations and Communications Training). The CSOs were aware that old ways of protesting and resisting are not the means to secure and maintain productive relationships with other sectors, but the reality of the uneven distribution of power in communities reflect on their capacity to engage. To paint a picture, a CSO representative may know what he/she wants, but when the municipal mayor comes, and more technically-learned and confident officers join in the discussion, the CSO finds it difficult to create and make space for her agenda. This is the reality of negotiations – there are powers that dominate; there are those who struggle to find their own spaces. These can be addressed by numbers – which is why the CSOs elect amongst themselves and select leaders who can represent them well. But the story of CSOs was not built on rainbows. They themselves have power struggles among them, and the politics of representation is strong. In many areas, in the sites and all over the Philippines, the numbers solved the CSO negotiating capacity problem. But not in all, as the ULAP team found out through the vignettes shared. The problem can also be addressed through intermediaries who can disperse the power distribution. This was the experience of ULAP when it comes to representing the local government agenda in nationallevel discussions. One mayor stands little chance in negotiating against a national government agency head. But ULAP, in its capacity as representative of all the leagues of local government units and elected officials, speaks with the full force of all the local governments in the Philippines. So the mayor finds himself/herself an ally in the institution of ULAP. There are CSO network groups in the Philippines, but the capacity to be able to organize, monitor, and represent is varied. Again, CSOs also play their own politics in their fields of engagement. There are some who can do representation work well. There are others who do not. This was a complicated challenge to address. Negotiating capacity is built on skill, experience, education, social capital, personality, among others. The project incorporated a “negotiation” session in one of its capacity-development sessions in the monitoring visits, but this was still not an assurance that the dynamics of negotiation will change in the local discussions. [c] CSOs involved in the BuB LPRATs are now “duty-bearers”, much like their local government counterparts. The BuB process has made the CSO representatives “politicians” in the sense that they elected to their position and that they are now also accountable to the community or sector which they belong to. This meant that they shall likewise need the capacity of communicating in an understandable manner with their constituents with regard to BuB implementation. DILG-PMO’s Richard Villacorte added to this thought during the Lessons Learned Session, that “the CSOs do not lack the
Page 19 of 25
knowledge on BuB rather what they lack is the intensity to put forward their agenda. This is where they need intervention and capacity-building.� Hence the treatment of CSOs involved in the BuB (or similar programs) need to change from merely representatives of their sectors to duty-bearers as well. They need capacity-building interventions so they can communicate technical and program discussions in a language that their constituency can understand. And this is not easy. CSO representatives receive a good variety of skills trainings, hence increasing their technical capacities. But when they return, for instance, to their constituents (i.e., indigenous peoples, farmers, fisherfolk), translating budget assessments, reporting audit compliance status, or explaining policy development progress can be extremely challenging, as disclosed by the CSOs involved in the project. This means then that the opportunity for constituency-building and communications support for CSO leaders is wide open for further interventions. This will not only benefit the BuB program, but also the overall distribution of powers and degrees of representation which strengthen a democratic society.
MOVING FORWARD
Moving forward, the ULAP team is looking at scaling-up and scaling-out the project in order to capture the other dimensions of the BuB reporting, which were not covered by the existing monitoring and reporting scheme of the national government agencies and the project. In the duration of the project implementation, the team was able to identify other dimensions of the reporting mechanisms raised by the local stakeholders, which were not captured by the existing reporting and monitoring protocols. There were other concerns in the BuB process such as:
Page 20 of 25
Issues on the whole BuB Process Issues from both the sub-national government and CSOs in the implementation of BuB projects Grievance of CSOs Political issues arising from the BuB program Lack of public consultation on BuB implementation
Consequently, there was a lack of a feedback platform that the sub-national governments and the CSOs can utilize to consult all the above concerns and inquiries with regard to the BuB program, especially in the reporting and monitoring of projects. In short, the ULAP team has opened a Pandora’s box in the BuB reporting, and the initial ‘addressing delay in clearing with COA’ challenge has expanded into explicitly pronounced needs on reporting of various elements – counterparting of provinces and municipalities, communication reporting of CSOs to maintain and/or develop further constituency-building, reporting and processing grievances of various kinds, and expanding reach of reports to communities on the ground, and to the national government agencies. But these are the kinds of challenges that are worth working on. The proposed scale-up and scale-out project, therefore, will build on the learnings from the innovation project that: [a] While the relationships in the Local Poverty Reduction Action Teams (LPRATs) between local government units (LGUs) and CSOs are in good terms, they have insufficient access to technical and policy information from national government agencies that should help them expedite the process of reporting their BuB projects. This affects clearance of tranches of the funds and delays project implementation. As earlier discussed, ULAP changed its project design to provide for what is now called the “BuB Almanac”, which is a consolidation of all reporting checklists and templates for BuB projects for 2015-2016. The BuB Almanac was considered necessary given that during the Design Thinking Workshops, all the project sites raised the issue that the national government agencies had different requirements and templates for their different projects, thus, causing difficulties in complying with the reporting of BuB projects. This output is endorsed and lauded in the NPRAT; as DILG noted, the agencies did not realize how diverse the requirements and templates are per agency per BuB project until they saw the consolidated list from ULAP. The BuB Almanac is to be distributed to all LPRATs all over the country upon completion. However, given that the different national government agencies which offer BuB introduce additional options to their menu of projects, and the changes in the BuB policies and scope, there is a need to continuously update the list of requirements and templates. This is to continuously provide support for the local governments in terms reporting. As also extensively discussed, ULAP and its pilot provinces in the innovation phase, have tinkered with the prototypes of a “BuB Hotline”, which was conceptualized by LGUs and CSOs as an information and help source for all LPRATs under each province. The “BuB Hotline” provides for four critical technical and communication functions: (a) assistance in data consolidation among LPRATs; (b) assistance in reporting;
Page 21 of 25
(c) provision of directories of agency focal persons; and (d) policy and program support of the province for the LPRATs. It is in the first two functions that the technology-based innovations through use of opensource databases and mapping strategies were employed. One of provincial project sites is already settingup its BuB Hotline. However given the project implementation phase of one (1) year, continuous support and monitoring are needed especially for the other sites in order to complete the intervention and set-up of their BuB Hotlines. [b] Project reporting is a wide area of concern that has not been sufficiently explored and responded to for BuB projects. Reporting is not just for compliance with the Commission on Audit (COA) reports per project, but also includes:
Reporting, documentation, and consolidation of provincial and municipal counterparts per project, in terms of funds, manpower, equipment, and other forms of support. ULAP learned that there is no existing knowledge as to how much of the required counterparts per project are shared by the province for the municipality. This is critical to show inter-LGU cooperation, and to give insight how BuB as a breakthrough project changes the fabric of local politics in the Philippines, given local realities in political affiliation, and the effect of the CSO participation and demand reshapes inter-LGU relationships.
Reporting and communication support to CSOs in the sense that CSO representatives in the LPRATS are themselves made into political actors through the BuB process. ULAP learned that CSOs are finding it difficult to explain technical and policy issues of BuB to their constituents in the communities. These issues include: why projects identified are delayed because of auditing requirements; why projects are delayed by bidding processes (and/or failures thereof); and the nature of participation of the CSOs (since ULAP documented reports that CSOs representatives are accused by their constituents of “selling out” to the government because they “receive money” even if the amounts are only to cover basic expenses to attend to LPRAT gatherings). This reporting and communication support to CSOs is critical, because the entire theory of change of BuB rests on the assumption that CSOs bring with them political support that increase acceptability of government decisions and policies in the communities.
Reporting, documentation, and analysis of grievances and actionable feedback from communities. While there is a grievance mechanism supposedly housed under the Regional Poverty Reduction Action Team (RPRAT), the protocols for which are still being developed in the NPRAT. While LPRATs recognize the RPRAT mandate to handle grievances, this mechanism has not yet been operationalized to document and sort the kind of reports that are generated from the communities. There is also the dimension that LGUs and CSOs want to be able to have grievances responded to more quickly on the ground, such that they would not have to wait for the regional level representatives of the agencies to convene before they can act on reports from the communities.
[c] The demand for reporting and technical support for LGUs and CSOs will be expanded and intensified given the introduction of programs that build on the lessons of BuB and increase in the allocation for such programs:
Page 22 of 25
Barangay BuB which is the BuB for barangays (villages), pegged at Php 12 billion in the 2017 Philippine budget and covering initial 12,000 barangays; and, Konkreto at Ayos na Lansangan at Daan Tungo sa Pangkalahatang Kaunlaran (KALSADA) which is the national subsidy for provincial roads maintenance and rehabilitation. This program for provinces is ongoing for 2016, with a budget of Php 6.5 billion, and is pegged for expansion to Php 39 billion in the 2017 budget. The KALSADA project will also be expanded to the cities in 2017, with a budget of Php 13.5 billion. Local Government Support Fund (LGSF), which is intended to provide financial assistance from the National Government Agencies (NGAs) to Local Government Units (LGUs) in support of their various priority programs and projects at the local level and to hasten the delivery of basic social services from the national level, shall be increased in the next years. This means that there shall be more funds for projects that shall be downloaded to local governments.
Ultimately, the proposed scale-up and scale-out project aims to improve relationships and increase opportunities for feedback loops between citizens and governments, with a broader scope of increasing government response through governance and innovative technology platforms. In general ULAP seeks to conduct the following: [1] Scale up the BuB Almanac, with online and offline distribution dimensions ULAP together with the NPRAT, shall facilitate the nationwide distribution of the BuB Almanac (covering checklists and templates for 2015 and 2016 BuB projects) from the innovation phase, to all LPRATs and relevant national and regional actors, for widespread and mainstream use. This idea has been pre-approved by the NPRAT. Distribution of the BuB Almanac is being explored to make use of online and offline platforms (especially that the current report templates are not available in websites of agencies, and not available in open formats for easier use of LGUs). In addition, development of a 2017 BuB Almanac, which will pre-empt and/or coincide with the release of BuB funds for 2017 projects. The idea is to assist LPRATs comply with reporting ahead of time by providing the technical and policy information they need at the onset of project implementation. Part of the conversations to be made is to explore if there is a need for a similar Almanac to be developed for Barangay BuB and KALSADA for provinces and cities. Note that the efforts of ULAP through the support of MAVC on this technical support for LPRATs have been immensely lauded by DILG and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). [2] Scale out of BuB Hotline ULAP has determined through the innovation phase that there is a concrete and explicit demand for an information and communication hub to assist LGUs and CSOs alike for reporting, in all its dimensions as discussed above. The Hotline has the following composite dimensions: A governance platform in the provincial level to account for data consolidation; reporting compliance assistance; grievance collation, analysis, and response (as applicable to the
Page 23 of 25
 
level of the LGUs); and policy and communication support to LGUs and CSOs for their constituencies; Online and offline information collection and public communication; Info-mediation protocols with local offices of national government agencies implementing/overseeing BuB projects of LPRATs.
[3] Capacity Development The members of the LPRAT of the municipalities/cities and the provincial government shall undergo capacity-building in the identification and utilization of the context-based BuB Hotline which shall provide feedback for the improved monitoring and reporting of BuB projects. [4] Public Assemblies LPRAT members and CSO constituents will be convened in selected municipalities to introduce the BuB process (specifically CSO participation) and the intervention through the project specifically the BuB 911 hotline (prototype). Information materials (posters and tarpaulins) generated by the local government or the LPRAT, with the support of ULAP, shall be displayed and distributed for further dissemination of information of the hotline in their communities. More so, processed data from the data management and mapping workshops will also be displayed for feedbacking.
CONCLUDING NOTES After the Lessons Learned Session, the ULAP Team and DILG-PMO discussed the moving forward of the project. The meeting has opened ample opportunities for the project for vertical integration and scale from findings and evidences shared to the members of the NPRAT and representatives from national CSOs. These opportunities are the following: 1.
Distribution of the BuB Almanac ver. 1.0, both in online and offline modalities. The DILG-PMO has expressed its interest in distributing the BuB Almanac to the LPRATs in the whole country to provide guidance on the requirements of the BuB reporting.
2.
Expansion of the BuB Almanac to include other reporting requirements of Barangay BuB and KALSADA. This has been proposed by ULAP to the MAVC for the scaling up and scaling out of the innovation project. The DILG-PMO has already expressed it support for the proposed project, specifically for the vertical integration of the Almanac ver. 2.0.
3.
Document evidence of provincial support for BuB, with possibility of establishing a clear grievance machinery at the provincial government through BuB Hotline. Initially discussed during the Lessons Learned Session, DILG-PMO has encouraged the scale up and scale out project to document evidences of provincial support for BuB since it complements the direction being set by DILG for the provinces to fully assume their oversight over all its component cities and municipalities. Page 24 of 25
4.
Developing a progressive and definitive proposal to the Commission of Audit (COA) to address the issues and concerns on implementing and reporting requirements of the NPRAT member agencies. The innovation project and this scale up and out proposal are seen as possible springboard for discussions and vertical integration with COA.
ULAP will follow through with DILG-PMO and NPRAT to pursue these directions.
For questions, clarifications, or other details about this report, please contact: UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES Secretariat ATTN: Czarina Medina-Guce, Executive Director Unit 2803 Summit One Tower, 530 Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City Website | Facebook | Email Tel: (02) 7181812, 7171810, 5346787; Fax: (02) 5346789
ULAP Project Team Executive Director:
Czarina Medina-Guce, M.A.
Plans, Programs, and Policy Unit Director Manager Technical Officer Project Officer Technical Associate
Genixon David Crystal Eunice Dela Cruz Norbert Peter Indunan Irish Generoso Leolaida Aragon
Communications Support Staff Data analyst
Christine Valenzuela Jessica Sandra Claudio
Finance & Administration Unit OIC - Director OIC - Accounts & Administration Officer
Dan Drebb Eusalan, CPA Rudy Borbon, Jr.
Page 25 of 25