ENHANCED CDD MODEL

16-step KC implementation was mainly a facilitated process for community engagement;

In 2005, an implementation strategy (CEAC) was formulated to address KC
institutionalization;
Institutionalization strategy implementation however in earlier KC areas was not quite
successful;
There is a need to purposively implement the institutionalization strategy;
Two-Track Proposal
The first track involves cycle 3 of Phase 3B and 4 which, following the CEAC, will be LGUled.
The second track is implementing a "pilot LGU-led implementation" of an enhanced
framework in Phase 1 and 2 municipalities.
First Track
Evolve" the LGU-led implementation, following the CEAC progression framework of
building appreciation, acceptance, and adoption across the three cycles.
2nd Track
Strong potential in phase 1 and 2 municipalities for taking lessons in KC implementation
towards institutionalization.
DSWD is keen in pursuing both tracks, and the insights from this workshop will help us work
out the arrangement.
2nd Track
DSWD is proposing to utilize barangay grant excess fund to operationalize the 2 nd track
proposal;
The proposal envisaged to enhance project sustainability;
Test an LGU-led implementation scheme of CDD technology;
Parameters
Functionality of local development bodies (BDCs, MDCs)
Availability of counterpart contribution;
Track record in KALAHI-CIDSS (LCC delivery, functional MIAC, observance of timelines, etc)
Consistency of implementation plans with the CEAC;
Governance and Empowerment Roles
DSWD and the DILG mandates revolve around technical assistance, resource
augmentation, and oversight.
Proposed Implementation Arrangements
With the greater implementation involvement of qualified LGUs, LGUs from eligible poor
municipalities shall manage the Project and contribute to the cost of social preparation of
communities and the cost of local project implementation support.
DSWD/DILG shall focus on project supervision, technical assistance, capacity building,
monitoring, and control of the grant funds for community projects.
What is Needed?
Identify LGU capacity and learning needs issues towards eventual LGU-led implementation
of KC;
Partnership in ensuring that LGUs have the capacity to undertake and
manage implementation of the CDD strategy
How do we work together to help LGUs undertake this strategy?
How can LGU-DSWD-DILG implement this strategy?

HARMONIZATION
Inter-Agency Collaboration around Poverty Reduction Outcomes
Agencies are assigned poverty reduction outcomes based on their sector mandate and
priorities
There is considerable room for inter-agency collaboration in contributing to specific
poverty reduction outcomes
Areas for very significant convergence of agency efforts are in improvement of access
to social goods and services and in access to social protection services. (Table 1)
1.Inter-Agency Community Outreach
Agencies focus on communities and population segments within these communities in
line with agency mandate.
Agency priorities lead to gaps in outreach to households and communities outside
agency sector priorities (although agencies do target poorest)
DSWD has flexibility and mandate to target poorest communities, households and
individuals (e.g., CCT)
NGAs dependent on LGUs channels to implement and deliver their agency programs
and services (limited organic staff).
2. Awareness, Understanding and Practice of CDD
Varying levels of understanding of CDD as well as agency- specific practice among
agencies (DA/DAR with agency mandates, others with program-specific CBA
frameworks.
All NGAs are community focused in the sense that households and communities are the
targeted beneficiaries of their programs and services. (POs with sector focus consistent
with the NGAs own priorities are fund recipients)
Direct control of resources by CBOs of program funds, procurement and M&E.
2. Awareness, Understanding and Practice of CDD
Compared to the Kalahi CIDDS CEAC process:
Extensive barangay level participatory situation analysis (PSA) focused on NGA sector
priorities.
Existing processes in agency/program assistance in project design and proposal (ARC
Working Group, DENR CBFM Multi-sector Group, DepED School Planning Team, etc.)
Priority criteria setting and use in project selection differs and varies widely across
NGAs. Criteria often embedded in program design.
Few NGA programs have own grievance and redress systems. (Citizens Charter,
Republic Act No. 9485, by default)
Fairly extensive participatory community based monitoring and evaluation processes of
program outcomes.
3. Perceptions of Value, Contribution and Agency Roles in NCDDP
Value added of NCDDP:
Greater development impact from household community outreach that goes beyond
household sector targeting
Providing more of the poorest communities with a more complete, integrated and
standard menu of development support services
Accessing the existing network of community volunteers
Local development plans that address sector specific as well as community wide
priorities
Enabling NGAs to do more with less
Clearing LGU planning and implementing bottlenecks

NCDDP and the LGUs

Need to build an inter-agency CDD approach that is based on a strong and clear
partnership agreements with LGUs at all levels.
Several NGAs doubted that they could participate effectively with NCDDP CDD
approaches that excluded LGU roles and responsibilities. Most NGAs are in the process
of resolving working relationship issues and strengthening partnerships with LGUs for
better program planning and implementation

Can NCDDP also address these issues?

NGA top of mind concerns were in terms of their own operations
Delays in liquidation by both LGU and PO/CSO partners of program funds received
Different interpretations and rulings by the local COA representative
Political interference in prioritization and program delivery processes
Data inconsistency in reports and baseline information used and provided esp. by LGUs
Uneven quality of local development plans and local development planning capabilities
and sub-project proposals (BUB)
Fragmented participation of LGUs at different stages of readiness (climate change and
disaster risk reduction)
4. Contributions to NCDDP
What NGAs can bring to NCDDP:
Sector specific data such as soil quality maps, school performance ratings, health issue
frequency and severity and tenure status, etc. for project design
Technical people to provide technical assistance, training and other capacity building
support to LGUs and community based organizations
Funds for community projects.
Pooling funds for capacity building
Field based NGA personnel, e.g., CENROs
5. Concerns that the KC CDD approach needs to accommodate
Situation analysis also results in sector specific issue discussion and analysis
Sector specific goals, objectives and targets are also outputs of situation analysis
Sector specific program and sub-project initiatives are identified
Sector specific sub-project proposals are not lost in the process of prioritization
Local sector stakeholders, e.g. local health boards, school stakeholders, Community
Health Teams, DOH Reps, MAROs, MAOs participate in all aspects of community
mobilization
A clear process for inter-agency review of sub-projects
Processes will be introduced that will allow NGAs to provide relevant technical and
sector performance data to guide program and sub-project proposal development
Sector specific plans and programs will be integrated into local development plans of
LGUs.