Group 2 - Program Development Narrative Report PDF

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA University of the City of Manila Intramuros, Manila COLLEGE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BPA 3005 -1 Program Administration Group 2, Narrative Rep...

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA University of the City of Manila Intramuros, Manila COLLEGE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BPA 3005 -1 Program Administration Group 2, Narrative Report Program Development Definition of Program Development, Phases, Program Staffing, Financing, Budgeting, Implementation. Administrative Capability, Blocking, and Program Amenities. Definition of Program Evaluation, Program Evaluators, and Misuses of Evaluation. Submitted by: Bravo, Divina Jane C. Calupig, Lenard P. Empalmado, Maylene A. Guillang, Pauline Joy B. Madarang, Princess Aira I. Nuez, Gene Andrei C. Submitted to: Prof. Cristopher J. Malanum CPA Secretary and Chairperson SEPTEMBER 2024 I. Definition of Program Development Program development is an ongoing, comprehensive planning process used to establish projects. Quality program development is supported by a well-thought-out and documented plan of action. Program development is essentially a road map, an action plan that provides the guidance needed to develop and build effective community programs. As an action plan, program development is an ongoing and continuous process. The planning process provides the foundation for decision-making in setting program priorities and using resources. By necessity, it involves gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data; identifying community needs, concerns, and assets; and communicating the results. II. Phases of Program Development The phases of program development in government typically follow a structured approach to ensure that public programs are effectively planned, implemented, monitored, and evaluated. These phases are generally similar across many governments and public agencies, with some variations depending on the specific governmental structure or policy area. The Phases of Program Development 1. Problem Identification and Needs Assessment - Identify the issue or problem that the program aims to address. Activities: Conduct research, gather data, and consult stakeholders. Determine the needs of the target population or area. Establish the program's goals and objectives based on the identified needs. 2. Policy Formulation - Develop a policy framework that outlines how the problem will be addressed. Activities: Develop alternatives and options to address the problem. Assess the feasibility, costs, and impacts of each option. Consult with policymakers, stakeholders, and the public. Formulate a preferred solution or program design. 3. Program Design - Design the program in detail, specifying its components, operations, and resources. Activities: Define program objectives, scope, and activities. Allocate resources, including budgeting, personnel, and technology. Develop program guidelines, procedures, and timelines. Incorporate risk management strategies. 4. Legislative or Regulatory Approval - Secure approval from the relevant governing bodies (e.g., legislatures or regulatory agencies). Activities: Draft legislation or regulatory proposals. Advocate for support from policymakers and stakeholders. Obtain necessary legal or regulatory approvals for funding, authority, and oversight. 5. Implementation - Put the program into action. Activities: Mobilize resources (financial, human, technical). Execute the program according to the plan, including launching services, infrastructure, or activities. Coordinate with different agencies, departments, or partners involved. Monitor ongoing operations to ensure that the program is progressing as intended. 6. Monitoring and Evaluation - Continuously assess the program’s performance and impact. Activities: Monitor progress against the program's objectives using performance indicators. Collect data on outcomes and outputs. Evaluate whether the program is achieving its goals and whether any adjustments are necessary. Report findings to stakeholders, funders, and oversight bodies. 7. Program Adjustment or Termination - Make changes to the program based on the evaluation or decide whether to continue, modify, or end the program. Activities: Revise program components based on feedback, evaluations, or changes in the environment. Decide whether to expand, reduce, or terminate the program. If terminating, implement an exit or transition strategy. 8. Sustainability and Expansion - Ensure the long-term sustainability of successful programs and consider their expansion if necessary. Activities: Secure ongoing funding and resources. Institutionalize the program within governmental structures. Consider scaling the program to other regions or populations, if successful. III. Program Staffing Program staffing refers to the process of selecting, assigning, and managing personnel within government programs to ensure that the programs function effectively and meet their objectives. In the government context, program staffing is important because public sector programs often involve large-scale initiatives that require specialized skills, adherence to regulations, and the efficient use of public resources. Program staffing in the government setting is vital for ensuring that public programs run smoothly and efficiently. It guarantees that the right people with the appropriate skills are in place to manage taxpayer-funded initiatives, meet legal requirements, and achieve policy goals. Additionally, government staffing often emphasizes accountability, transparency, and equitable service delivery to meet the needs of the public. IV. Program Financing and Budgeting A government setting involves the allocation of public resources to different programs, services, and departments. The process is guided by policies, objectives, and priorities set by government authorities. It plays a crucial role in ensuring efficient resource management and meeting the needs of citizens while adhering to fiscal responsibility. Key Aspects of Program Financing and Budgeting 1. Revenue Generation Taxation: The primary source of revenue for most governments, including income tax, corporate tax, property tax, VAT, etc. Non-Tax Revenues: Includes revenues from fees, fines, licenses, public services, and profits from state-owned enterprises. Borrowing: Issuing government bonds or taking loans from domestic or international lenders to finance deficits or capital projects. 2. Budget Preparation Forecasting Revenues and Expenditures: Estimating the total income and projected expenses for the upcoming fiscal year based on economic indicators, historical data, and policy priorities. Setting Priorities: Aligning the budget with government policy objectives, including social programs, infrastructure, defense, education, etc. Budget Proposal Submission: The executive branch (e.g., the Ministry of Finance) consolidates budget proposals from different departments and submits a comprehensive budget to the legislature for approval. 3. Budget Approval Legislative Review: The proposed budget undergoes scrutiny by the legislative body (e.g., Parliament, Congress). Amendments may be made, and the budget must be voted on and approved before it is enacted. Public Consultation: In some governments, there are consultations with stakeholders and citizens to ensure transparency and inclusiveness in the budget process. 4. Budget Execution Fund Allocation: Once the budget is approved, funds are disbursed to various government agencies and departments according to their allocated amounts. Cash Management: Managing government cash flows to ensure liquidity for ongoing expenses and avoiding unnecessary borrowing.  5. Program Financing Direct Financing: Funds are allocated directly to government programs or services from the central or local budget. Performance-Based Financing: Some government programs receive funding based on meeting performance targets or outcomes. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): Financing for projects through collaborations between the government and private sector entities. 6. Monitoring and Evaluation Internal Monitoring: Continuous review by finance ministries or agencies to track expenditures and ensure programs are being funded as planned. External Audits: Conducted by bodies like the Auditor General to verify the proper use of funds and prevent fraud or misuse. Performance Evaluation: Assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of government programs in meeting their objectives and using public funds appropriately. V. Program Implementation Four Phases of Program Implementation 1. Program Planning a. Goal Setting: Define the key goals of the project and prioritize them based on stakeholder input. Set “SMART” goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) to ensure the alignment of the program to the goals. Ex. The very purpose of the 4Ps program is to provide social and cash assistance to the poor to alleviate their needs (short term goal) and lastly it aims to break the intergenerational poverty cycle through investment in human capital , i.e. health, nutrition and education (long-term goal). b. Scenario Planning: Explore and anticipate different development scenarios and potential impacts of the program. This can involve tools like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to visualize land use changes. This can also foresee some of the possible challenges that may arise, which is necessary to improve the program.  Ex. Some of the anticipated positive impacts are: Improved school attendance and completion rates among children from low-income families. Better health outcomes, including reduced malnutrition rates and higher vaccination coverage. And challenges such as: Potential stagnation in the effectiveness of the program, as poverty alleviation remains short-term without complementary programs (e.g., skills training or employment opportunities). Geographic limitations in program reach: Remote areas, Indigenous communities, or conflict-prone zones may still be underserved. Unsupervised misuse of the provided cash assistance for other purposes. c. Resource and Budget Planning: Ensure that necessary resources (people, time, budget, and tools) are allocated to meet the project needs. Develop a detailed budget that accounts for both capital and operational expenditures (e.g., maintenance, workforce needs). A total of P112. 8 billion in the 2024 National Expenditure Program (NEP) will be allocated for the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) which is targeted to assist 4.4 million eligible households. d. Project Timeline Planning: Create a project timeline that includes major phases like design, development, testing, and deployment. 2007: Initial pilot testing of the 4Ps program. 2008: Formal launch of 4Ps under President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. 2009-2010: National rollout and expansion under the Aquino administration. 2015: Legislative discussions on institutionalizing the program. April 17, 2019: Republic Act No. 11310 signed into law, making 4Ps a mandated and permanent government program. 2. Program Implementation a. Pilot Projects: Start with small-scale pilot projects to test the viability of certain program elements In 2007, the program began with pilot testing in a few selected municipalities to evaluate its potential effectiveness. Luzon: Quezon Province, Masbate, Camarines Sur, National Capital Region (NCR) - Metro Manila Visayas: Leyte, Negros Oriental, Samar Mindanao: Zamboanga del Sur, Surigao del Norte, Lanao del Norte b. Incremental Expansion: Gradually expand the program based on the results and feedback from the pilot phase, adjusting the approach as needed. Due to positive initial results, the 4Ps program was expanded to include more regions and a larger number of beneficiaries. The program reached more than 700,000 households in 2009. Under the Rodrigo Duterte administration, the program was further expanded, targeting over 4.4 million households by 2017. 3. Program Monitoring and Evaluation Measures the success of the program and adjusts the strategies based on performance and feedback data. a. National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR): This system identifies poor households that qualify for the 4Ps program based on economic criteria. It was later rebranded as the Listahanan program. b. Beneficiary Data Management System (BDMS): The BDMS is a digital database system that manages records of the 4Ps beneficiaries. It tracks household information, eligibility, compliance with conditions, and payment details. c. Compliance monitoring: A crucial part of the program wherein beneficiaries must meet specific health, education, and family development requirements to avoid facing reductions or suspensions of the cash transfers. Education: Children must be enrolled in school and maintain an 85% attendance rate. Health: Pregnant women must attend prenatal checkups, and young children must receive vaccinations and regular checkups.  Family Development Sessions (FDS): Parents or guardians must attend FDS, where they receive information on parenting, family values, and responsible citizenship. d. Grievance Redress System (GRS): A system set up to handle complaints and issues from the beneficiaries or the public. It addresses issues such as inclusion errors (non-poor households included), exclusion errors (poor households excluded), or payment delays. This feedback mechanism is essential to ensure program transparency and accountability. e. Regular Audits and Evaluations: The Commission on Audit (COA) conducts regular audits of the 4Ps program to ensure that funds are appropriately allocated and disbursed. f. Spot Checks and Third-Party Monitoring: Third-party organizations such as NGOs, international agencies, and research institutions conduct spot checks which assess the program’s performance in specific regions or provinces and to validate the data collected by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). g. Field Monitoring and Reports: Field staff, including Municipal and City Links (4Ps implementers), monitor beneficiary households at the community level. 4. Program Sustainability Ensure that the program’s outcomes are maintained over time. a. Institutionalization: Integrate successful program elements into ongoing government policy or business operations to ensure long-term viability. On April 17, 2019, Republic Act No. 11310, also known as the 4Ps Act, was signed into law by President Duterte, officially institutionalizing the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. The law made the 4Ps a permanent poverty alleviation initiative, ensuring that future administrations would continue to fund and operate the program. b. Capacity Development: Ensure local governments and stakeholders have the capacity to implement and sustain the program (e.g., training local officials, ensuring adequate technical staff).  After the law was passed, the program continued to evolve, with new components added such as livelihood training and stronger linkages to local economic programs. By 2020, the program adapted to address the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, providing emergency cash assistance to help vulnerable families. VI. Administrative Capability Administrative capability refers to the ability of a government, organization, or institution to effectively implement policies, manage resources, and deliver public services. It encompasses the capacity to organize, plan, and execute administrative tasks, ensuring that governance or management processes run smoothly and efficiently. Key Aspects of Administrative Capability 1. Policy Implementations - The ability of the government or organization to translate laws and policies into practical programs and actions. 2. Resource Management - Efficient allocation and management of financial, human, and material resources. Administrative capability ensures that resources are used wisely, avoiding wastage and corruption. 3. Institutional Strength - Strong and well-organized institutions that have the capacity to manage and execute their responsibilities efficiently. 4. Bureaucratic Competence - The presence of a skilled, professional, and motivated bureaucracy capable of handling complex administrative tasks. 5. Regulatory Framework - The existence of a strong legal and regulatory framework that guides the functioning of institutions, ensures accountability, and promotes good governance. 6. Public Service Delivery  - The ability of the government to provide essential services (e.g., education, healthcare, infrastructure) efficiently and fairly. 7. Innovation and Adaptability - The capacity of an institution to adapt to changing circumstances, innovate, and modernize its processes to meet new challenges. 8. Leadership and Coordination - Effective leadership at various administrative levels ensures that departments and agencies work together in a coordinated and strategic way. VII. Blocking and Program Amenities In the context of government, "blocking" and "program amenities" typically refer to processes or policies related to how government programs are structured, funded, or restricted. Blocking “Blocking" often refers to the process of preventing or delaying the progress of specific policies, projects, or legislative actions. This can occur due to political disagreements, legal challenges, or administrative hurdles. Example: Budgetary Blocking Regulatory or Legal Blocking Political Blocking Program Amenities Program amenities are extra features or services that improve a program's overall experience for its participants. These facilities support the efficiency, usability, and enjoyment of public services in the framework of public administration. Examples of Program Amenities in Public Administration: 1. Accessible Facilities ○ Ramps, elevators, and designated parking for individuals with disabilities in government buildings. 2. Waiting Areas  ○ Comfortable waiting rooms in public offices equipped with seating, reading materials, and information kiosks. 3. Technology Access ○ Free Wi-Fi and computer stations for citizens to access online services in public libraries or community centers. 4. Information Resources ○ Brochures, pamphlets, and digital displays that provide information about available services, programs, and community resources. 5. Public Transportation ○ Shuttle services to help residents access government offices or community programs, particularly in underserved areas. 6. Childcare Services ○ On-site childcare during public meetings or events to encourage participation from parents. 7. Health and Safety Features ○ Access to sanitation facilities, clean water, and health screenings at community events or public health programs. Simplified service delivery also reduces hurdle, which facilitates citizens' navigation of public systems. Administrations can decrease wait times, increase satisfaction, and promote confidence in government processes by offering the essential amenities, such as technological access and easily accessible information resources. In the end, these improvements support a more effective and efficient public administration that fosters civic involvement, fosters long-term partnerships, and not simply attends to citizens' urgent needs. In order to ensure that all residents feel respected and supported in their encounters with public services, a focus on program amenities highlights a commitment to serving the community holistically. VIII. Definition of Program Evaluation The methodical process of gathering, examining, and interpreting data regarding the efficacy and efficiency of a program is known as program evaluation. Its goals are to determine areas that require improvement and to evaluate whether program objectives are being reached. Both qualitative and quantitative methodologies are usually used in the process to give a thorough picture of program performance. A program's assessment gives stakeholders the vital data they need to make evidence-based decisions about funding allocations, program changes, and strategic planning. Organizations can choose how best to use their resources by knowing what works and what doesn't. Programs can adjust and change as a result of feedback and results from regular evaluations. By encouraging continuous improvements, this iterative method makes sure that programs continue to be applicable and successful in satisfying the demands of the target audiences. Types of Program Evaluation 1. Process Evaluation: Focuses on program implementation, assessing activities, outputs, and inputs to identify areas for improvement. 2. Outcome Evaluation: Measures the extent to which a program achieves its intended outcomes, evaluating both short-term and long-term effects. 3. Impact Evaluation: Examines the broader societal or environmental effects of a program, including unintended consequences, to assess overall impact. 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Compares program costs with its monetary benefits to evaluate value for money, aiding decisions on program continuation or termination. 5. Formative Evaluation: Conducted during program development to enhance design and implementation, providing feedback on activities, inputs, and outputs. 6. Summative Evaluation: Conducted at the end of a program phase to assess effectiveness and impact, summarizing performance to guide future decisions. To put it simply, program evaluation is an essential instrument that not only evaluates the accomplishment of projects but also promotes accountability, advancements, and well-informed decision-making in a variety of fields. IX. Program Evaluators What is a Program Evaluator? A program evaluator is a highly-skilled professional who is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of programs and services. They gather and analyze information to assess the impact of programs, make recommendations for improvement, and provide feedback to program managers. They look at a range of factors, including costs, impacts, potential improvements, alternatives, unforeseen consequences, and whether the program’s goals are appropriate. Importance of Program Evaluators Program evaluators play an integral role in any organization’s success by providing objective and unbiased evaluations of programs, services, and activities to ensure that they are meeting their goals and objectives. While they are employed in private and public sector organizations, it’s crucial when public money is being used as organizations need to ensure that it’s being spent wisely. This can be done by asking whether the program is achieving its goals and whether it’s the best use of resources in terms of time and money. In private organizations, program evaluations play a role in determining whether an organization’s key performance indicators (KPIs) and financial compliance are being met. Required Skills and Qualifications In order to be a successful evaluator, you will need a combination of analytics and communication skills, coupled with expertise in evaluation methodologies: 1. Analytics and Communication Skills Strong background in research methodologies (qualitative & quantitative). Effective communication to present findings clearly. 2. Relevant Educational Background Degrees in public administration, social sciences, or economics are beneficial. Research-intensive fields like sociology or economics are common. 3. Applied Research Skills Ability to ask the right questions and find actionable answers. Present findings in ways that matter to stakeholders. 4. Creativity and Problem-Solving Critical thinking and attention to detail. Creativity in tackling unique challenges in program evaluation. Creativity in tackling unique challenges in program evaluation. Why Is There an Increasing Demand for Program Evaluators? 1. Accountability and Transparency Increased demand in government and nonprofit sectors.  Greater focus on transparency in program funding and outcomes. 2. Evidence-Based Decision-Making Growing need for data-driven decisions in policy and program development. Rise of evidence-based practices across various fields. 3. Growth in Social Programs Expansion of social programs requiring evaluation. Importance of measuring program impact and effectiveness. Sectors in Demand of Program Evaluators Government: Federal, state, and local government programs and policy implementation and assessment Nonprofit Organizations: Program funding and grant requirements and measuring program outcomes and impact Healthcare: Evaluating public health programs and assessing the effectiveness of healthcare interventions Education: School and district program evaluations and higher education program assessments Corporate Sector: Evaluating corporate social responsibility initiatives and assessing training and development programs X. Misuses of Evaluation Introduction to Misuse of Evaluation Historical Context: Misuse of evaluation has been a recognized issue since the 1960s when the practice of evaluations became more widespread. Early scholars like Borgatta (1966), Suchman (1967), and Weiss (1972) pointed out the potential for misuse. Campbell’s Forecast: Donald Campbell (1988) predicted that as quantitative indicators become central to decision-making, the risk of corruption and distortion in the evaluation process increases. Patton’s Affirmation: Patton (2015) reaffirmed that the growth in evaluation use correlates with an increase in misuse. Definition and Nature of Misuse  Misuse refers to the unethical or inappropriate application of evaluation findings or processes, often manipulated for personal or political gain. Misuse occurs when evaluation findings or processes are deliberately misapplied for self-interest (Stevens & Dial, 1994). Misuse of evaluation is unethical because it distorts the true intent of evaluation—providing unbiased insights to inform decisions. Misuse often involves the actions of clients or stakeholders who manipulate the evaluation for self-interest rather than the practices of the evaluators themselves (Newman & Brown, 1996; Morris, 2008). The user’s purpose in cases of misuse is always self-serving and unethical, often motivated by personal gain or political objectives. Guttman-Scale Framework helps define misuse by considering the user’s unethical intent, differentiating it from legitimate use. Nonuse vs. Misuse: Nonuse, or failure to use evaluation results, is unintentional and passive, while misuse involves intentional manipulation or distortion of results often with unethical motives for personal reasons. (Stevens & Dial, 1994). Misevaluation: Misuse can arise from using poorly conducted evaluation studies (King, 1988). Users may either unintentionally or knowingly use inaccurate evaluations, with the latter considered misuse if done for personal advantage. Examples of Misuse: ○ Cherry-Picking Data: Selective use of evaluation results to support ineffective programs for personal advantage. ○ Negative Data Manipulation: Stakeholders manipulate data to highlight negative aspects of a program they dislike. Types of Evaluation Misuse Misuse can occur at various stages of the evaluation process, including commissioning, during the evaluation process, and when using evaluation findings. A. Commissioning Misuse Symbolic Use: Evaluations commissioned for political reasons, publicity, or funding with no real intention of using results (Weiss, 1973; Duffy, 1994). Legitimative Use: Evaluations used to justify pre-existing decisions without openness to change or influence decision-making. (Owen, 2002). B. Process Misuse  Subversion of Evaluation: Administrators may obstruct evaluation processes by cutting funding, restricting access to critical data, or using political influence to sabotage results (King, 1988). Financial Manipulation: Redirecting evaluation funds for other purposes (Christie & Alkin, 1999). C. Findings Misuse Data Modification: Selectively using or Altering findings to fit personal agendas (Chelimsky, 2011). Misrepresentation: Exaggerating or misrepresenting valid data to suit user needs (Weiss by & Bucuvalas, 1980; Cook & Pollard, 1977). Use of Invalid Data: Purposely using inaccurate or known invalid data to push a particular narrative. REFERENCES 4Ps Law - Tags | Philstar.com. (n.d.). Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/tags/4ps-law AcostaPablo, A. B. (n.d.). An update of the Philippine conditional cash transfer’s implementation performance (English). World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/3229714 68178773885/an-update-of-the-philippine-conditional-cash-transfer-s-implementation-perfor mance Department of Social Welfare and Development [DSWD]. (2019). RA-11310 or “An act institutionalizing the 4Ps.” https://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/RA-11310.pdf DSWD’s 4Ps program to get P112.8B, up by P10.23B in the proposed 2024 national budget. (n.d.). https://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php/management-2/196-dswds-4ps-program-to-get-p112-8b-u p-by-p10-23b-in-the-proposed-2024-national-budget Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4PS) | DSWD Field Office III Official website. (n.d.). https://fo3.dswd.gov.ph/pantawid-pamilyang-pilipino-program-4ps/ Policy in urban planning. (n.d.). ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780080177588/policy-in-urban-planning Son, H. H. (2023, July 7). Ex-Ante impact Evaluation of conditional cash transfer program on school attendance and poverty: the case of the Philippines. Asian Development Bank. https://www.adb.org/publications/ex-ante-impact-evaluation-conditional-cash-transfer-program-school -attendance-and Springer Publishing Company. (2023, August 20). Overview of program implementation. Springer Publishing. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/book/978-0-8261-3844-6/part/part04/chapter/ch14 The Chang School of Continuing Education - Toronto Metropolitan University. (n.d.). The Chang School of Continuing Education - Toronto Metropolitan University. https://continuing.torontomu.ca/contentManagement.do?method=load&code=CM000401 The Comprehensive Guide to Program Evaluation. EvalCommunity. (2024, April 22). https://www.evalcommunity.com/career-center/program-evaluation/ What is program evaluation and why is it needed? (n.d.). https://au.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/97995_1_What_is_Program_Evaluation_and_ Why_Is_It_Needed.pdf Alkin, M. C., & Coyle, K. (1988). Evaluation misuse: A framework for depictions of evaluation influence. Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 12, 3-13. University of California. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7gw2z6vr