Evaluating PESFAPs

A companion to the IDEA Inc. Research Proposal

Explanatory Note
IDEA Inc. maintains the validity of the original proposal and all its contents. This document aims to present largely
the same contents of the original proposal, but in a different way, so as to highlight the important issues raised by
the selection panel.

This companion has three parts: the workplan, the detailed conceptual framework and the summary of outputs.
The workplan shows simultaneous activities that shall be conducted within a three-month period. It also provides
an idea of manpower and resource allocations per major activity. The detailed framework addresses concerns
regarding the practicality of the approach being proposed for the study. It illustrates the kind of process mapping
that shall be conducted, as well as the kinds of data that shall be examined by the quantitative and qualitative
analysis. The summary of outputs shows that the proposal aims to address both interim and long-term
requirements of the country.

Workplan
Legend: high, medium and low manpower and financial requirements

Notional
Duration Activities
Period
Survey Design Review of Related
 Develop Interview Literature, specifically
19 – 30 Dec 2011

Questions practices in US and Review of 14 Pending Bills

 Focus Group Australia  Collection of Proposed
2 weeks

Discussion (FGD)  Collection of Bills

 Pilot Test and Materials  Assignment of Collected
Revisions  Assignment of Materials
 Organize Interviews Materials
and Agency Visits
Agency Visits, Key
Informant Interviews, and
Agency Visits, Key
FGDs
Informant Interviews, and
 North Luzon (Metro
1 – 27 Jan 2012

FGDs
Baguio) Policy Notes
 Metro Manila (mostly
4 weeks

 South Luzon (Metro  Conceptual Framework

with central / head
Naga/Legazpi)  Literature Review
offices)
 Visayas (Metro Cebu)  Bills Review
 Mindanao (Metro
Davao)
Process Evaluation
 Mapping of System and Incentive Flows
1
 Notional
Duration Activities
Period
Impact Evaluation
 Construction of Baseline Data
 Mapping the Effect of Financial Support Programs in
Post-Basic Education Sector
Midterm Progress Report
Draft Report
30 Jan 2012 – 3 Feb

 All Previous Policy Notes

 Mapping of System and
1 week

Analyses and Recommendations Incentive Flows

2012

 Synthesis of Reviews, Data, and Interviews  Mapping the Effect of

Financial Support
Programs in Post-Basic
Education Sector
Policy Notes
Feb 2012
1 week

6 – 10

 Implications of Unified
Presentation Conference Draft Bill
Bill to GASTPE and other
Laws
13 – 24
2 weeks Finalization of Report
Feb 2012

The two most intensive activities are the field visits and the presentation conference. It is not advisable to visit the
central / head offices only and rely too much on review of literature and secondary data; field-level perspective
provides the much needed insight to make the analysis more realistic and useful, especially in view of a system that
lacks cohesion and is decentralized.

Detailed Conceptual Framework

The flow of analysis will include, BUT NOT BE LIMITED, to the following:

INPUT ACTIVITIES OUTPUT OUTCOME

(Nos. 1 to 7) (Nos. 8 to 11) (Nos. 12 to 13) (Nos. 14 to 16)

Financial, human, and other Actions taken or work Project deliverables within Use of outputs by beneficiaries and
resources mobilized to performed to convert inputs the control of implementing stakeholders outside the control of
support activities into specific outputs agency (ENDOGENOUS) implementing agency (EXOGENOUS)

I. Preliminary phase (policy-setting)

1. Proposal (for new programs)
2. Enabling and governing laws
3. Fund sources
4. Strategic plan (medium term or a 6-year rolling plan) formulated by the current administration,
such as the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016
5. Implementation plan of Implementing Agency (IA)
2
 a. Objectives and criteria for selection
b. Benefits
c. Application requirements
d. Targets

II. Preparation/Pre-implementation phase

6. Budgeting of IA
a. Budget of the program sent to Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for approval
i. Allotment of financial assistance according to targets
ii. Manpower or personnel required
iii. Maintenance and other operating expenses required for this purpose
b. Inclusion of budget in the National Expenditure Program (NEP)
c. NEP sent to Congress for approval
d. General Appropriations Bill from Congress sent to Office of the President for signing
e. General Appropriations Act published
7. IA programs disbursement of fund allocations, to be acted upon by the DBM

III. Implementation phase

8. IA activates financial assistance program
9. Information dissemination
a. Release of advertisements
b. Circulation of application forms
c. Coordination with administering institutions (if applicable)
10. Database of applicants, their submitted requirements, and information gathered from these
requirements
11. Evaluation of applications
12. Finalization of recipients
a. Selection
b. Notification of award
13. Administration of financial assistance (fund disbursement)
a. Direct – funds disbursed to students upon submission of pertinent documents
b. Indirect – funds disbursed to education institutions

IV. Monitoring phase

14. Utilization of financial assistance
a. Who availed from the pool of accepted applicants?
b. What will happen to unused funds?
15. Fulfillment of obligations of the recipients, as stipulated in the terms or contract with the IA
a. Submission of requirements/documentation
b. Academic performance
c. Re-payment of loans, if applicable
d. Employment stipulations, if applicable
16. Review of statistics
a. Demographic analyses of recipients, based on their socio-economic information and
performance
b. Detect possible leakages, in reference to desired results of inputs, activities, outputs, and
outcomes

3
The above framework represents the process by which a financial assistance program is implemented by the
provider or the implementing agency, taking into account its partners and beneficiaries. A generic flowchart will be
constructed to show the flow of activities for each of the support typologies (i.e. means, merit and mixed). This can
produce a menu of options based on these typologies in formulating a unified PESFAP bill.

This also represents the various stages where incentives play key roles. For example, politicians looking for re-
election will have the incentive to propose new programs to boost reputation; big universities with adequate
administrative staff may be more interested in accommodating scholarship recipients; applicants who get accepted
to more than one program might value one over the other due to preferences and constraints. An analysis of these
incentives is crucial to ensuring that the program design shall yield results that adhere to the objectives of equity,
efficiency and effectiveness.

As for the aforementioned objectives of equity, efficiency and effectiveness, the study shall work with the following
definitions and proposed metrics:

A.) Effectiveness - Assess the extent to which goals and targets are met

Proposed Metrics
 Targets versus actual output
 Actual utilization versus programmed resource spending
 Actual activities versus planned activities

B.) Efficiency - Assess the extent to which (1) resources are used in a least cost manner to deliver the results;
and (2) how resources are allocated that could bring about the best results

Proposed Metrics
 Program output versus resources spent
 Program output versus quantity and quality of activities conducted
 Quantity and quality of activities conducted versus resources spent

C.) Equity - Measures the extent to which financial support program has expanded access to post-basic
education for the poor and the extent of expansion of resource allocation across geographical location and
post-basic education programs

Proposed Metrics
 Distribution of resources (funds, manpower, etc) according to:
o Geographical location;
o Priority courses/education programs; and
o Socio-economic groups
 Benefit incidence
o If data permits, equity opportunity index thru Lorenz curve using income/socio-economic
classification

Lastly, these steps also represent the data fields that will be collected by the team over the course of the study,
which in turn shall serve as inputs to a management information system (MIS) that is, at the outset, seen as a
possible tool in improving the system’s efficiency. Quantitative data shall be subjected to econometric analysis to
determine correlation and causality, while qualitative data shall corroborate statistical findings.

4
In drafting the said bill, the study will likewise look into related laws and programs that will be affected such as
Republic Act 6728 or the Government Assistance to the Students and Teachers in Private Education (GASTPE), as
amended; Presidential Decree 193 or the National Integration Study Grant Program (NISGP); PD No. 932 or the
Educational Assistance Act of 1976 (Study Now Pay Later Plan); and RA 7687 or the Department of Science &
Technology (DOST) Scholarship Fund, among others.

Outputs
The following are the outputs of the proposal. All requests based on the Terms of Reference were addressed, but a
few others were added to make the study more comprehensive:

1. Inception report / Workplan

2. Mid-term report
3. Draft report
4. Final report
5. Policy notes on various topics – to provide user agencies and Congress useful initial analysis and
information while the study is being conducted. Topics may include:
a. Description / operationalization of the conceptual framework
b. Summary of review of literature – effective practices and possibilities for the Philippines
c. Description of bills reviewed
d. Process flowchart
e. Incentive (behavioural tendencies) flowchart
f. Legal and legislative implications of emerging recommendations – GASTPE and other laws
6. Draft Unified PESFAP Bill – all the work done to complete the final report will culminate in the drafting of a
possible comprehensive bill. The coverage may include, but is not limited to:
a. Policy declarations
b. Implications to existing laws, if any
c. Program design (targeting / funding)
d. Implementation suggestions
i. Possibility of a PESFAP Clearinghouse
ii. Organizational guidelines
iii. Role of private sector / banks
iv. Conceptual design of management information system
e. Monitoring and evaluation
i. Capacity-building for monitoring
ii. Results-based (continuous) financing
iii. Oversight bodies (Congressional and executive) and other sectoral representatives that
could be involved
iv. Frequency of reporting