PHILIPPINE ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM AND BOTTOM-UP BUDGETING ( BuB ) AND PLANNING

1. PHILIPPINE ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM AND BOTTOM-UP BUDGETING (BuB) AND PLANNING

2. OBJECTIVES 1 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 2 3

3. 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.

4. LEGAL BASIS • 1. DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1, s. 2012 dated March 8, 2012. (Policy Guidelines and Procedures in the Implementation of Bottom-up Budgeting and Planning for the FY 2013 Budget Preparation) • DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2, s. 2012 dated December 19, 2012. • ( Guidelines for the Implementation and Monitoring of Bottom-Up Budgeting (BuB) Projects in FY 2013)

5. COMPARATIVE DATA

6. COMPARATIVE DATA

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

8. COVERAGE 2013: 609 2014: 1,233 2015: 1,634 2016: 1,634 2017: ??? Cities & Municipalities

9. StrengtheningSchool-Community and DepED-LGU Linked Planning & M/E

10. I. CONTEXT/RATIONALE Local Anti-Poverty Plan NAPC 609 LGUs & cities • Transparency, accountability, citizen participation • Main task: Implement pro-poor programs • Main instrument: good governance • PROGRAMS • direct subsidies • direct service delivery • community-driven development National Government Agencies

11. A. DepED-LGU Planning: Engagement of DepED in 2013 LPRAP Process I. CONTEXT/RATIONALE • 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

12. Rapid Education Assessment as part of LPRAP process: Malungon, Saranggani 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 School level data gathering

13. 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) 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) • 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) Education Development Framework: Guide in Formulating the District Situational Analysis

14. 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 interventionswere included in the LPRAP (Feeding Program, provision of IMs for Reading and construction of WASH facilities)

15. II. DepED-UNICEF INTERVENTIONS • Refinement of school-community planning tools • SIP Guide (Process and Tools) • 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

16. National level - Refinement of planning and M&E frameworks, processes and tools Provincial/City Development Plan Provincial LSB Plan Division Education Development Planning B. Introduction of refined planning tools in DepED-LGU Planning 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) EO of July LGU Annual Investment Plan LPRAP Local School Board Plan Quarter 1 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_ Before opening of SY LGU/LSB Planning Interventions in almost all elementary schools and districts of 24 out of 36 focus GPH-UNICEF areas DepED Planning

17. 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.

18. 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

19. III. KEY INSIGHTS & OBSERVATIONS 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

20. Thank You