CSC Manual

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
ABOUT THE PROJECT

ABOUT THE REPORT
WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS
3
3
3
4
GUMACA, QUEZON
DAY 1: BARANGAY GITNANG BARRIO
DAY 2: BARANGAY TABING DAGAT
5
10
LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR

DAY 1: BARANGAY BAHAO
DAY 2: BARANGAY POTOT
15
19
MACARTHUR, LEYTE
DAY 1: BARANGAY DANAO
DAY 2: BARANGAY LIWAYWAY
23
28
GIGAQUIT, SURIGAO DEL NORTE

DAY 1: BARANGAY SICO-SICO
DAY 2: BARANGAY VILLAFRANCA
32
36
NARRATIVE DOCUMENTATION
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1.
WORKSHOP DESIGN
APPENDIX 2.
PANTAWID PAMILYA RESEARCH BASED ISIs
APPENDIX 3.
KALAHI-CIDDS-NCDDP RESEARCH BASED ISIs
APPENDIX 4.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD PROGRAM RESEARCH BASED ISIs
APPENDIX 5.
PANTAWID PAMILYA CONSOLIDATED REPORT
APPENDIX 6.
KALAHI-CIDDS-NCDDP CONSOLIDATED REPORT
APPENDIX 7.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD PROGRAM CONSOLIDATED
REPORT
40
45
47
52
80
60
97
INTRODUCTION
ABOUT THE PROJECT
As a social accountability tool, the Community Scorecard (CSC) supplements DSWDs regular monitoring
and evaluation (M&E) with the participatory approach. The project aims to introduce the CSC as the local
service providers systematic guide for gathering and analyzing the community beneficiaries feedback
on the programs and co-determining appropriate courses of action for improvement. Specifically, the
project aims to:
1. Adapt the CSC design and process in DSWDs core programs and their convergence to enhance the
monitoring and evaluation from the perspective of the beneficiary households and communities.
2. Introduce the CSC tool and process to selected DSWD staff and partner CSOs in the planning,
monitoring and evaluation of DSWDs Convergence Program in identified pilot areas.
3. Provide policy recommendations as input to develop and/or strengthen the DSWD Social Accountability
Framework.
ABOUT THE REPORT

This report narrates the CSC processes conducted in Gumaca (Quezon), Libmanan (Camarines Sur),
MacArthur (Leyte), and Gigaquit (Surigao del Norte).
WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS
GUMACA , QUEZON
23-24 NOVEMBER 2015
DAY 1: BARANGAY GITNANG BARRIO

Date: 23 November 2015
Venue: Bulwagang Salakot, Gumaca, Quezon
Duration: 8:22 am 5:15 pm
PRELIMINARIES
The event started at 8:22 in the morning. The beneficiaries and the service providers of the three
DSWD core social protection programs filled the function room at the ground floor of the hotel. Most of
the beneficiaries occupied the front portion of the room while the service providers occupied the back
portion.
As the main facilitator for the day, Dondon Parafina (Don) of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team
introduced the event, the ANSA-EAP as an organization, and the concepts Social Accountability and
Community Scorecard. Afterwards, Timmy Marifosque, DSWD Central Office staff, introduced the three
DSWD programs. Prior to the groupings, Don had identified the two groups (the beneficiaries and the
service providers) and gave them a flow of the entire program. Morning snacks were served before
the two groups separated. The beneficiaries remained in the function room while the service providers
moved to the conference room located on the second floor.
OPEN SPACE
Beneficiaries
After the morning snacks, the beneficiaries remained in the function room. Most of them were women.
Don continued to facilitate the CSC process for the beneficiaries. At 8:50, the Open Space started
with an introduction of the Open Space principles. The activity gave a glimpse of the beneficiaries
understanding of the program and their immediate concerns through their answers to the questions,
Ano ang dapat na ibinibigay ng programa? and Ano ang dapat na kalidad nito?
Service Providers
By 8:48, the service providers moved to a properly
ventilated room in the second floor. The room
was mostly filled with KC service providers. The
SLP service providers were the fewest. Roy
Choco (Roy) and Edward Gacusana (Edward),
who are members of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC
Team, facilitated the CSC process for the service
providers.
By 9:05, Roy started the Open Space by
introducing the Open Space principles. The
facilitators distributed green and yellow metacards
to the three groups of service providers. The
facilitators then instructed the participants to write
PRIORITIZATION AND SCORING
their answers to the question, Ano ang dapat na
ibinibigay ng programa? on the green metacard OF INPUTS, STANDARDS &
and the question, Ano ang dapat na kalidad nito? INDICATORS
on the yellow metacard. There was a shortage
on markers for this session as the number of Beneficiaries
KC service providers had increased beyond the
number of expected attendees.
At 9:40, after the Open Space, the beneficiaries
started to identify their priority inputs, standards,
and indicators. After an hour, the scoring of priority
indicators followed.
The scoring process of Pantawid beneficiaries
was disorganized. Not all of the beneficiaries were
active during the process and one beneficiary
seemed to dominate the process. The process
resulted to multiple corrections and produced
mostly perfect scores. It is worthy of noting that
the beneficiaries asked where grant deductions
go. This shows that the beneficiaries themselves
are asking for accountability.
By 9:25, the service providers started to write
down ideas on their respective metacards. The
KC group members, which had the most number
of people, were writing the same ideas. The
generated inputs were mostly on community
empowerment, with community participation and
active beneficiaries as the standards. During the
sharing of ideas, most of the KC service providers
were just sharing with one another while the SLP
and Pantawid service providers had combined
their similar ideas. The green cards of the SLP
and Pantawid service providers reflected ideas
on livelihood, education, poverty reduction, and
financial assistance. Their yellow cards reflected
ideas on security or sustainability of the programs,
quality education, transparency, and punctuality of
grants. The service providers were very attentive
and engaged. Some of them even showed a sense
of humor.
The SLP beneficiaries were not satisfied to most

of their identified priority indicators. They flagged
concerns such as insufficiency of funds, their
lack of capacity to repay, and the procedures for
repayment.
the term poor as some beneficiaries find this

offensive and would rather use the term indigent.
The Pantawid service providers scored most of
their priority indicators with satisfied. They were
extremely happy with the convergence input as
they see that it could help other families who are
also beneficiaries of KC and SLP.
Some members of the KC group were not very
active during the priority listing. The older members
were the most active. The KC service providers
flagged that the grants usually come late, thus
resulting to issues and grievances. This was the
only problem identified by the group.
Some members of the SLP group were taking notes

of all the research-based inputs, standards, and
indicators before they discussed which priorities
should come off from their program. They stressed
that they want to select people who can and would
want to sustain the program. Similar to KC, the
SLP service providers also flagged the punctuality
Most of the identified priority indicators of the KC
of funds for the beneficiaries. Unliquidated cash
beneficiaries were scored with satisfied.
would delay the incoming funds and projects.
Service Providers
By 9:50, the program proceeded with the
research-based inputs, standards, and indicators
for the three programs. Roy explained what Input,
Standard, and Indicator meant and presented
examples: table as the input, good quality as the
standard, and sturdy as the indicator. Afterwards,
the facilitators instructed the service providers
to choose which of the research-based inputs,
standards, and indicators should be prioritized
(four standards and two indicators) and scored.
The Pantawid service providers stressed the
inaccuracy of selection, especially when using
The SLP service providers, however, were overall

satisfied with the rest of their priority indicators.
providers also informed the beneficiaries that, to

avoid deductions, the latter should make up for
missed Family Development sessions (FDS).
KC-NCDDP
After lunch break, the KC beneficiaries and service
providers proceeded to the second floor for the
interface session. The number of KC service
providers had already decreased by the start of
the session.
To start the session, Edward asked both groups
(the beneficiaries and the service providers) to
examine each groups priorities and scores, and
then examine the other groups priorities and
scores. Both groups were engaging each other
during the entire session.
INTERFACE
The scores given by the KC beneficiaries show

that they have a sad emoticon, specifically on
Pantawid Pamilya
the meeting input. The KC beneficiaries flagged
a problem about having to attend coinciding
By 1:20, the Pantawid beneficiaries and service meetings because some of them are also Pantawid
providers gathered in the function room for the beneficiaries. What they want to happen is for KC
Interface session. The facilitator emphasized that and Pantawid meetings to be held on separate
the session is not much of a fault-finding probe but dates so that they can attend both meetings and
rather, a discussion of solutions for the immediate also, to avoid sacrificing time intended for their
concerns of both groups.
daily responsibilities. The service providers were
trying to figure out how to make both ends meet
One of the beneficiaries flagged that since 2012, as the topics discussed during these meetings are
her child has not received cash grant despite being intersecting.
in the master list. It turned out that the problem is the
lack of coordination among the beneficiaries, the Both the beneficiaries and the service providers
parent leader, and the service providers. Contrary were satisfied with the handling of grievances. The
to the claim, the child in question was not listed service providers encouraged the beneficiaries to
in the master list. The service providers explained demand for faster processing of grants as this is
that if not properly registered, the grant will not be one way to develop community empowerment.
received anymore because the Pantawid grant is They also advised the beneficiaries to report
not retroactive if unclaimed for more than a year.
grievances through texts, emails, or letters.
During the interface, the beneficiaries seemed
a bit intimidated by the presence of the service
providers. When the facilitator asked the
participants if they would want to change some of
the scores, the beneficiaries gave higher scores.
It should also be noted that the beneficiaries did
not decide as a group. This made the scores of
the beneficiaries and the service providers almost
matched.
The question of the beneficiaries as to where the
deductions from the grants go was answered by
the service providers: it remains in the government
treasury since it was not disbursed, Pantawid
being a compliance-based program. The service
Another issue that surfaced during the interface

was the request for incentives for community
volunteers (CVs). One of the beneficiaries raised
that the CVs should get allowances in order for
them to do quality jobs. The service providers,
however, flagged a previous experience which has
shown them that giving out monetary allowances
only result to arguments between CVs. Despite
disallowing monetary allowances, the service
providers said that they compensate the CVs
with free food and transport. This issue came up
because this was not explained to the beneficiaries
prior to the event.
PLENARY
By 4:25, all of the groups were asked to present
the results of the interface and action planning
sessions. They came up with next steps keeping
in mind the 100 days timeframe. It was observed
that most of the participants look tired during the
plenary session.
Pantawid Pamilya
KC-NCDDP
To ensure the timely release of grant, the KC group
recommended that the 5-5-5 rule be implemented.
Also, document preparation and scheduling of
meetings should be coordinated.
The Pantawid group highlighted the need for a

grievance logbook so that the parent leader can
keep track of the beneficiaries concerns, and at
the same time, help empower the beneficiaries.
Logbooks will be provided by March 2016. A caseto-case basis of going beyond the call of duty
on the part of service providers had also been
suggested by the service providers themselves.
On the part of the beneficiary whose child did not
receive any cash grant, the service providers and
the beneficiaries agreed that, if the concern had
been raised to the parent leader for more than two
months already and no action has been done, the
beneficiary may address the concern (preferably
with a letter) directly to the service leader in the
municipality.
FEEDBACK
By 4:50, Don began the feedback session with
a refresher of what happened the entire day and
an icebreaker. He asked the participants to write
down the positive comments on a blue metacard
and the negative comments on a pink metacard.
Most of the feedback from the beneficiaries were
positive.
The positive feedbacks were:
Food, facilitator, and venue
The objectives of the program were clear.
The CSC process was found beneficial by both
The main concern of the SLP group was the timely parties because it allowed clarifications of issues
release of grant. To fast-track the liquidation of and concerns.
unliquidated advances, a meeting with the mayor The CSC process also helped the beneficiaries
was scheduled on 1 December 2015.
develop a better understanding of the DSWD
programs.
SLP
The strengths and weaknesses of the DSWD programs had been identified.
The areas for improvement were:
Processing should not be spoonfed.
For the visual aids, use new technology instead of writing things manually.
There is a constant need for icebreakers for stimulation.
The CSC process could be more efficiently executed within the barangay. The CSC facilitators must
be the one to go to the barangays and not the other way around.
The venue is a bit small.
The pacing of the discussions should be a bit slower.
CLOSING
The program ended by 5:15 in the afternoon.

NOTE: The SLP Interface was undocumented due to the lack of documentors during that time.
DAY 2: BARANGAY TABING DAGAT

Date: 24 November 2015
Venue: Bulwagang Salakot, Gumaca, Quezon
PRELIMINARIES
The participants arrived at around 8:00 in the
morning. By 8:15, the program started. As the
main facilitator for the day, Nikki Gregorio (Nikki)
of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team started by
asking the participants what the event is all about
and presented to them the program flow. Dondon
Parafina (Don) of ANSA-EAP, introduced ANSAEAP as an organization, the concepts Social
Accountability and the Community Scorecard.
Timmy Marifosque, DSWD Central Office staff,
introduced the three DSWD core social protection
programs. The participants, which were composed
mostly of women, were attentive during the
preliminaries as all eyes and ears at the facilitator.
They seem a bit more inquisitive compared to the
participants in the first day.
ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team led an icebreaker.

By 8:37, the participants were asked to group
themselves. Instead of grouping the participants
according to DSWD program, they were asked to
count off from one to three in order to be grouped.
This prohibits the participants from copying each
others answers.
After the grouping, Nikki proceeded by explaining
the concept of input and standards through an
example by asking the participants, What does
one expect to have at a restaurant? The crowd
answered, Food. Nikki then followed up with,
What quality do you expect out of the food? The
crowd replied, Tasty.
She then asked the participants to write what

kind of service they should expect from their
respective programs (Ano ang dapat na binibigay
There were several changes made to the program ng programa?) And what should be the quality of
flow due to the feedbacks and observations this service (Ano ang dapat na kalidad nito?)
processed during the debriefing session of
the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team. Significant By 9:05, Nikki asked the participants to form two
improvements on the pedagogy had been made lines, face the person on their side, and then share
as well. Furthermore, the service providers would the answers they wrote on metacards. This was
no longer be present in the morning sessions since another modification made to encourage everyone
they have already gone through these sessions on to be more participative. After the sharing of
the previous day.
answers, they were then asked to post their
metacards on the wall. Afterwards, the facilitators
OPEN SPACE
clustered the metacards in preparation for the next
activity. The participants then had their morning
Before the groupings, Sam Poblete (Sam) of the snacks outside the function room.
10

OF INPUTS, STANDARDS &
INDICATORS
Another modification was made for the priority
listing session. The facilitators showed only
the research-based inputs and standards.
The indicators will have to be produced by the
participants themselves. This is in response to the
feedback about spoonfeeding which was identified
the previous day.
Pantawid Pamilya
Nikki asked the Pantawid beneficiaries to come up
with six to seven priority inputs. The group came
up with seven priority inputs. Nikki then asked the
group what standards should come up for each
The program resumed at 9:40. Nikki gave a input and what indicators should come up for each
recap of the open space session and gave more standard. Once the group had finished listing
examples in preparation for the next activity. She their priority inputs, standards, and indicators,
made the restaurant example more concrete by Nikki facilitated the scoring of the indicators. After
asking the participants how they can determine if scoring each indicator, the group relayed the
the food in the restaurant is of Tasty, answers reason for each score.
included, if the dish contains all the ingredients.
One of the things they flagged was the availability
She then asked what other service one should and sufficiency of doctors and medicines. They
expect from a restaurant aside from food. The also raised concerns about compliance verification,
participants answered service. She then asked such as misspellings in the beneficiaries
the participants, What should be the quality information. The Pantawid beneficiaries gave a
of service? The participants answered, good positive score to most of their priority indicators.
service Then she asked how do you determine if
the service is of good quality?, answers included
The waiter should be attentive and polite. It was
observed that the KC participants were the most
active during the session, especially one of the
male KC beneficiaries.
After the recap, Nikki then proceeded with
introducing the main parts of the Community
Score Card: inputs, standards, and indicators.
She distinguished between the three by citing
the examples given, Food and Service are the
inputs, Tasty and Good service are standards
and having all the ingredients and waiters being
polite and attentive are indicators.
The participants were then asked to group
themselves according to their respective programs.
The KC and Pantawid groups remained in the
function room, which was divided into two rooms
with a sliding door. The SLP group transferred to
the second floor.
11
KC-NCDDP
Sam facilitated the prioritization and scoring of the
KC group. The KC group had taken some time
for each of their priorities as they were discussing
each of the indicators and concerns. Most of their
concerns were on the timely release of grants and
the sustainability of the assistance provided to
them. The KC beneficiaries also raised the need
for allowances for community volunteers (CVs).
each group to report the group outputs to the

plenary.
Pantawid Pamilya
The Pantawid beneficiaries had the most number
of inputs, standards, and indicators among the
three groups. The identified concerns include
peacefulness of community assemblies, availability
and sufficiency of doctors and medicines, and
correctness of the beneficiaries information.
KC-NCDDP
Among the three groups, the KC beneficiaries
had the most number of negative scores on their
priority indicators. Their concerns include the
sufficiency and timely release of grants and the
continuity of KC staff.
SLP
The concerns of the SLP beneficiaries include the
insufficiency of SLP staff, the sustainability of the
program, and the seed capital fund.
INTERFACE
SLP
Marc Villarosa (Marc), member of the ANSA-EAP
DSWD-CSC Team, facilitated the discussion for
the SLP group. No individual beneficiary was
dominating the discussion. The selection process,
grant, and proposal/grant request gained positive
scores from the SLP beneficiaries. The lack of SLP
staff and skills training gained negative scores.
The participants had their lunch around 12:35, after

the sharing of priorities to the plenary. By 1:27,
the program resumed. Marc began by leading an
icebreaker. Nikki then gave a recap on the concepts
Social Accountability and Community Scorecard,
as well as the program flow. Nikki elaborated that
on the next session, the service providers will now
join the beneficiaries to discuss the outputs. For
the interface session, the Pantawid group and the
KC group remained in the function room while the
SLP group moved to the second floor.
Pantawid Pamilya
First, the Pantawid service providers presented
their priority inputs, standards, and indicators.
The Pantawid beneficiaries then presented their
priorities. Both groups compared their results
and talked about the differences to come up with
recommendations. By 3:10, afternoon snacks
were served.
By 12:03, Will Villones of the ANSA-EAP DSWDCSC Team led an icebreaker. Afterwards, Nikki
gave a recap on what happened in the previous
session. She then asked representatives from
12
SLP
The SLP beneficiaries were all women aged around
35 and above while the SLP service providers were
a mix of women and men. Everyone was actively

participating during the discussion. Questions
were raised and clarifications were made without
generating heated arguments.
PLENARY
At 3:45, the session resumed with an icebreaker
led by Don. Afterwards, representatives from
each program presented their action plans to the
plenary. The presenters were composed of one
service provider and one beneficiary. Questions
were raised during the session. This is indicative
of the active participation of both the beneficiaries
and the service providers.
KC-NCCDP
The KC group came up with recommendations
to address issues about grants, selection of CVs,
capacity development for CVs, and allowances
for CVs. One of the main concerns of the KC
group was the uncertainty of having a next cycle
because Gumaca is a first class municipality. The
recommendations, however, included raising this
concern to the LGU, especially when it comes to
projects and funding. Despite the uncertainty of an
additional cycle, one service provider explained
that there is a possibility that the LGU would adopt
KCs mechanisms. This will help sustain what has
been started by the program.
Pantawid Pamilya
The Pantawid groups recommendation to avoid
distractions during community assemblies was
for the mothers to make sure that they can control
their children if they need to bring their children
along with them. If not, I would be best if they leave
their children to a responsible guardian. As for the
availability of doctors, it was recommended for
the beneficiaries to go to the municipal hall since
it is only one ride away from the barangay. As for
the sufficiency of medicines, the barangay health
workers should keep records and double check
in order to avoid shortage. As for compliance
verification, the beneficiaries must always
double check their records before submission in
order to avoid erroneous records. Finally, for the
beneficiary selection, people can always make an
appeal for them to get an interview. Those who are
not yet part of the program should always check
announcements in the barangay.
SLP
The recommendations of the SLP group include
additional services such as skills training in
vinegar production, with the SLP staff assisting the
beneficiaries in creating a new livelihood project.
13
FEEDBACK
By 4:30, Nikki asked the participants for feedback.
The objectives of the event were properly explained.
The program was systematic.
There has been an improvement in the use of metacards.
The facilitators were very approachable and did a good job in their roles.
Prayers at the start and end of the CSC process had been recommended.
CLOSING
The feedback session ended at 5:00 in the afternoon. Afterwards, the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team
distributed certificates of attendance to the participants. A photo-op of the participants, together with the
ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team and DSWD Central Office staff members, followed.
NOTE: The KC Interface was undocumented due to the lack of documentors during that time.
14
LIBMANAN , CAMARINES SUR

2-3 DECEMBER 2015
DAY 1: BARANGAY BAHAO

Date: 2 December 2015
Venue: Tinandayagan Falls and Resort, Libmanan, Camarines Sur
PRELIMINARIES
Due to unexpected delays, the program started late. At 9:34 in the morning, the main facilitator, Roy
Choco (Roy) of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team, gave a background about the event, the ANSA-EAP
as an organization, and the concepts Social Accountability and Community Scorecard. Abigail dela
Cruz (Abi) DSWD Central Office staff, introduced the three DSWD core social protection programs.
OPEN SPACE
After the preliminaries, the Open Space session started. Prior to the groupings, Roy presented the flow
of the days program. Morning snacks were served before the two groups (the group of the beneficiaries
and the group of the service providers) separated.
For the Open Space activity, the participants were asked to write their answers to the questions, Ano
ang dapat na ibinibigay ko/sa akin ng programa? (on green metacard) and Ano ang dapat na kalidad
nito? (on yellow metacard).
15

INDICATORS
At 10:15, the prioritization of inputs, standards,
and indicators started. The scoring of priority
indicators followed.
Beneficiaries
Seeing the output of the KC beneficiaries, it

seems that they did not understand the concepts
Standard and Indicator well. The main concern of
the group was the unavailability of the CEF during
community assemblies.
The Pantawid beneficiaries were satisfied with

almost all of their priority indicators. This shows
that the program is handled quite well in the
barangay.
As for the SLP beneficiaries, their main concern

was the repayment scheme. They are unable to
repay the grant on time because they are unable
to generate sufficient income.
Service Providers
The Pantawid service providers included all of the
research-based inputs in the priority listing and
scoring. Their priority standards and indicators
were also a bit confusing.
16
INTERFACE
The priority listing and scoring ended at around
12:20 in the afternoon. By 12:50, after lunch break,
the interface session started.
Most of the KC service providers were males. The
KC service providers were not serious during the
session as they made jokes about the metacards.
But in the latter part of the session, collaboration
developed. Nobody dominated the discussion.
Their main concern was the continuity of KC staff.
Based on their experience, there was no proper
turnover when a community volunteer had to leave
the project. They also flagged the low participation
rate of community members.
Pantawid Pamilya
The Pantawid beneficiaries and service providers
came up with common inputs but their difference
in perspective is evident in their differences in
standards and indicators. They had a minor
disagreement on beneficiary data management.
The beneficiaries were satisfied because they think
that it was handled well. The service providers,
however, were not satisfied because the data are
not updated regularly. There were no changes in
ratings as both groups accepted how the other
party rated the indicators.
KC-NCDDP
The main concern of the SLP service providers

was the repayment scheme. Because some of
the SLP beneficiaries had been affected by pests,
the service providers suggested to modify the
repayment scheme.
The KC beneficiaries and service providers

came up with common inputs but their difference
in perspective is evident in their differences in
standards and indicators. The issue about grants
was discussed during the interface. Requirements
should be submitted on time to fast-track the
processing of grant. Also, plans that had been
agreed upon must be followed. To prevent project
delays, the CVs should be trained on project
implementation and documentation. There were
no changes in ratings as both groups accepted
how the other party rated the indicators.
SLP
Both parties flagged a concern about the repayment
scheme. The service providers recognized the
17
problem that was raised by the beneficiaries. The

service providers then realized that the repayment
policies should be modified. There were no
changes in ratings as both groups accepted how
the other party rated the indicators.
PLENARY
The interface session ended at 2:30. The plenary
session followed. Representatives from each of
the three programs presented their respective
action plans.
SLP
The SLP group members have agreed that
identification of factors (such as market demand,
etc.) and linkages with microfinance institutions
and other relevant institutions could boost the
potential of small SLP businesses. As for timely
repayment, monitoring should be improved.
CLOSING
Pantawid Pamilya
The recommendation and action planning of the
Pantawid group was not fully maximized because
of time constraints.
The program ended at 3:15 in the afternoon. It

should be noted that the process was done in a
hurried manner so that the participants will be able
to go home before twilight. The distance of the
workshop venue from the participants community
is about 40 kilometers, rough road.
KC-NCDDP
The KC group came up with action plans to
improve the participation rate of the community
members.
18
DAY 2: BARANGAY POTOT

PRELIMINARIES
The beneficiaries arrived at around 8:15 in the morning. The program started at 8:45. For the second
day, some of the service providers were no longer present in the morning sessions since they have
already gone through these sessions on the previous day.
OPEN SPACE
Roy Choco (Roy) and Marc Villarosa (Marc), members of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team, asked
the participants to write their answers to the questions, Ano ang dapat na ibinibigay ko/sa akin ng
programa? (on green metacard) and Ano ang dapat na kalidad nito? (on yellow metacard). Afterwards,
the participants were asked to post their metacards on the wall. The facilitators then clustered the
metacards. The morning snacks followed.

INDICATORS
At 9:30, the priority listing started, followed by the scoring of indicators.
Beneficiaries
The output of the Pantawid beneficiaries shows that the program is handled well, except the community
assemblies. This is because the scheduled meetings are usually cancelled.
19
Same as the Pantawid beneficiaries, the output

of the KC beneficiaries shows that the program is
handled well.
As for the SLP beneficiaries, most of the priority

indicators were rated with satisfied. Their main
concern was the sustainability of the grant, that is,
it is not enough for them to be able to generate
income. This is the reason the beneficiaries are
unable to repay the grant.
Most of the KC service providers were males.

Nobody dominated the discussion. A tension
aroused when the concern about the inability of
the community treasurer to deliver her tasks was
raised.
Service Providers
The Pantawid service providers included all of the
research-based inputs in the priority listing and
scoring. Their priority standards and indicators
were also a bit confusing. They raised a concern
about compliance verification, that is, there are
cases of mercy compliance.
The main concerns of the SLP service providers
were the delayed release of grant and the
insufficiency of SLP staff. Timely release of
grant is crucial to enterprise development. As for
the insufficiency of SLP staff, Libmanan is a big
municipality and the present number of staff is not
enough to closely monitor all of the SLP projects in
the municipality. Additional staff is recommended.
20
SLP
The SLP beneficiaries and service providers came
up with similar scores for their common priority
indicators. They talked about their concerns on
grant and sufficiency of SLP staff. There were no
changes in ratings as both groups accepted how
PLENARY
The priority listing and scoring ended at 3:15 in the
afternoon.
INTERFACE
Pantawid Pamilya
To resolve the identified issues of the Pantawid
beneficiaries, the group members have agreed
At around 1:10, after the lunch break, the to consult with the ML. They have also agreed to
beneficiaries and the service providers grouped reimburse the expenses of the PL.
themselves per program. The interface session
served as the venue for the beneficiaries and the
service providers to talk about the differences in
their outputs and recommendations to address
identified issues.
Pantawid Pamilya
The Pantawid beneficiaries and service providers
came up with common priority inputs. The parties
differed in their satisfaction on the selection
process. The beneficiaries were satisfied with
it but the service providers were not satisfied.
Apparently, this is because the beneficiaries
rated based on their community-level experience
while the service providers rated based on their KC-NCDDP
municipal-level experience. There were no
changes in ratings as both groups accepted how The recommendations and action plans of
the KC group revolved around their concerns
on participation rate and finance reports. The
beneficiaries and the service providers have agreed
KC-NCDDP
that finance reports be submitted the day after the
The KC beneficiaries and service providers came CSC process to facilitate the implementation of
up with common priority inputs but they differ in projects in the barangay. Re-orientation meetings
standards and indicators. There was an outburst of will also be conducted to remind the stakeholders
emotion from the service providers on the inability about the tasks and responsibilities necessary to
of the community treasurer to submit finance properly implement projects.
reports. The community treasurer immediately
apologized for her negligence. She also explained
her side. The misunderstanding between the two
parties was resolved peacefully with the help of the
facilitators and some DSWD Central Office staff.
There were no changes in ratings as both groups
accepted how the other party rated the indicators.
21
SLP
The SLP beneficiaries and service providers have agreed to link the SLP association with the Department
of Agriculture to develop skills in hog raising. Also, to address the insufficiency of SLP staff, the ideal
number of SLP staff in Libmanan will be proposed.
CLOSING
The program ended at 4:15 in the afternoon.
22
MACARTHUR , LEYTE
2-3 DECEMBER 2015
DAY 1: BARANGAY DANAO

Venue: Ace Francis Hotel, Tacloban City, Leyte
PRELIMINARIES
The bus that transported the beneficiaries from Barangay Danao arrived at 8:38 in the morning. The
registration immediately followed. It took one and a half hour to two hours for the participants to travel
from their respective communities to the venue. They were served snacks upon arrival. It was noted
that there were mostly women attendees, and only a few men.
The program started at 9:00, opened by Dondon Parafina (Don), member of the ANSA-EAP DSWDCSC Team. A participant led the mornings prayer.
Timmy Marifosque of the DSWD Central Office gave a brief orientation on the project in the context of
the DSWD Programs. She emphasized the constant goal of DSWD to be responsive to the needs of
communities and of the program beneficiaries. The CSC is one way of getting to hear the opinions and
recommendations of communities.
By way of introducing the program, Don explained the program, calling the participants attention to the
title Enhancing Social Accountability and Community Participation in DSWD Core Social Protection
Programs through the Community Scorecard Process. He likened the Community Scorecard to the
Student Report Card, emphasizing that what will be graded are the core social protection programs of the
DSWD, and neither the beneficiaries or the particular staff. Recognizing that the government, through
the DSWD, allots sizeable amount of resources for the programs, it would be appropriate to evaluate
whether the programs are the correct and effective programs that meet the needs of communities. The
CSC is being considered as a methodology for evaluation and a guide on how to improve the DSWD
programs.
Don explained that the CSC process may be appropriated funds by the DSWD to be run in the 40,000
barangays nationwide. The CSC may then be used as a basis for assessing the performance of the
programs Kalahi-CIDSS-NCDDP, Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP), and the Pantawid Pamilyang
Pilipino Program (4Ps or Pantawid). The participants were then recognized.
Afterwards, the levelling of expectations followed. The participants were given metacards and marking
pens to write their expectations from the workshop.
The metacards were then collected and posted on the wall, as follows:

Expectations from the workshop: magkaroon ng discussion, FGD, at workshop; mas maraming
impormasyon tungkol sa programa ng gobyerno; malaman ang best practices sa ibang lugar; malaman
ang papel ng mga benepisyaryo.

Expectations from Pantawid: sana mas marami pa at madagdagan pa ang tulong na nakukuha
namin sa Pantawid; sana magpatuloy ang 4Ps.

Expectations from KC-NCDDP: sana yung dating ibinigay sa amin na kaupayan ng barangay
ay padayon (mapagpatuloy ang mga serbisyo); inaasahan po namin na magpatuloy ang livelihood.

Expectations from SLP: sana magpatuloy ang livelihood; sana madagdagan ang tulong.
23
After the levelling of expectations, Don explained the concept and components of Social Accountability,
presenting the formula of which is: Social Accountability = (Constructive Engagement x Citizen Monitoring)
assertiveness. The discussion was done in Filipino: constructive engagement, i.e., makabuluhang
pakikipag-ugnayan sa pagitan ng pamahalaan at mamamayan multiplied by citizen monitoring, i.e.,
pagsubaybay at pagmamatyag. Both of these are then multiplied by the element of assertiveness.
With citizens who organize themselves, they would have the power to engage with the government and
participate in government programs.
Various tools and instruments are used in making social accountability happen in areas such as
budgeting, expenditure tracking, and in monitoring procurement of goods, services, and programs. The
Community Scorecard (CSC) is an example. The CSC, in this case, assesses the DSWD core social
protection programs, through the participation of the program beneficiaries and the service providers.
The process is initially done separately (one group for the beneficiaries and another group for the service
providers). They are eventually brought together in an interface meeting where the beneficiaries and
the service providers come face-to-face and discuss the scores or assessments of the programs. The
workshop on CSC is designed to assist DSWD in assessing its programs and in developing appropriate
measures to improve these programs.
Don asked the participants to cooperate and be truthful or frank in rating the various DSWD programs.
He then proceeded to explain the flow of the days activities.
The participants were then grouped into two: the beneficiaries and the service providers. The service
providers were to conduct their discussions in the inner chamber while the beneficiaries were to hold
their discussions in the main hall. A facilitator and a documenter for each group were assigned: Don
and Mary Pilares (volunteer documenter) for the beneficiaries, Sam Poblete (Sam) and Imelda Perez,
who are both members of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team, for the service providers.
24
OPEN SPACE
To make the participants feel at ease, the principles
of the Open Space activity were explained in
Filipino. They were then asked to write on two
metacards their answers to the questions, Ano
ang dapat na ibinibigay ko/sa akin ng programa?
(on green metacard) and Ano ang dapat na
kalidad nito? (on yellow metacard).
the icebreaker, the discussion on priority inputs,

standards, and indicators followed. After the
beneficiaries finished rating their priority indicators,
they ate their lunch.
Below is the output of the Pantawid beneficiaries:
Service Providers
Below is the output of the KC beneficiaries:

INDICATORS
Beneficiaries
After the Open Space activity, the prioritization of
inputs, standards, and indicators followed. Don
first explained the terms Input, Standard, and
Indicator: Input refers to the provisions of the
program; Standard refers to the quality of the input;
and Indicator is the measurement or gauge for the
standard. Don then gave examples. For example,
in a restaurant: food is an input; standards are
delicious (masarap), nutritious (masustansya),
and cheap (mura); and indicators for the standard
delicious are right taste (tama ang timpla) and
nice presentation (maganda ang presentasyon).
Another example, for education: classroom is an
input; comfortable (komportable) is a standard;
indicators are spacious (malawak) and right room
temperature (hindi mainit ang kuwarto).
Below is the output of the SLP beneficiaries:
The beneficiaries were further grouped into the

three DSWD programs. At around 10:25, as they
were to start with their workshops, the participants
were invited to participate in an icebreaker,
Maayos kong magagawa ang CSC ko. After
25
Service Providers
The prioritization of inputs, standards, and
indicators followed after the Open Space activity.
Sam first explained the terms Input, Standard,
and Indicator: Input refers to the provisions of
the program; Standard refers to the quality of the
input; and Indicator is the measurement or gauge
for the standard. The service providers asked that
examples directly relating to their programs be
provided so that they would understand better.
Before starting the prioritization, the service
providers were invited to participate in an
icebreaker, Maayos kong magagawa ang CSC Below is the output of the SLP service providers:
ko. The group sang the Waray version. Afterwards,
the group was further divided into the three DSWD
programs. The groups proceeded to discuss
their priority inputs, standards, and indicators.
The service providers took longer time for their
discussions than the beneficiaries. Because of
this, the service providers had to rate their priority
indicators while eating lunch.
Below is the output of the Pantawid service
providers:
INTERFACE
For the interface, the beneficiaries and the service

providers per program sat together to discuss
their outputs from the prioritization and scoring
session. Each program came up with an action
plan which will be later presented to the plenary.
PLENARY
For the plenary session, representatives from each

of the three programs presented their respective
action plans.
Pantawid Pamilya
Below is the output of the KC service providers:
26
KC-NCDDP
SLP
Afterwards, the feedback session followed. The participants expressed that they were glad to have
participated in the CSC exercise. Reviewing their expectations, they checked that most of their
expectations were met.
It was concluded that CSC is important in the continuance of DSWD programs. The beneficiaries were
able to express their concerns about the programs and the issues they face, including the perceived or
assessed areas for improvement of the services and service providers. Moreover, recommendations
were forwarded, including much-needed incentives for community volunteers (CVs).
The participants also appreciated the venue, food, and the interaction between the beneficiaries and
the service providers.
CLOSING
The program ended at around 5:30 in the afternoon.
27
DAY 2: BARANGAY LIWAYWAY

PRELIMINARIES
The participants from Barangay Liwayway arrived at 8:14 in the morning. The morning snacks were
served upon their arrival. Instead of the usual registration where participants queued to sign in, an
attendance sheet was circulated in each table. The morning session was with beneficiaries only; the
service providers were to join the workshop on the interface session and would use the outputs of the
previous day.
The program formally started at quarter to 9, with a participant leading the morning prayer and followed
with the singing of the national anthem.
Dondon Parafina (Don), member of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team, welcomed the participants.
He pointed to the title of the activity, underscoring that the objective is to strengthen and improve the
DSWD programs. The participants were also briefed on what Social Accountability is: that, in a nutshell,
it means having a dialogue and engagement between the government and the citizens (ugnayan ng
pamahalaan at mamamayan). Don then acknowledged the beneficiaries of each DSWD program with
a show of hands.
Afterwards, Sabina Tabo, DSWD Central Office staff, welcomed the participants to the workshop and
explained that it is an opportunity to rate the DSWD programs. She also emphasized the need for the
beneficiaries to actively participate in the workshop activities.
Don explained that the reason everyone is in the room is to participate in the community scorecard (CSC)
process. The DSWD has partnered with the ANSA-EAP on the conduct of CSC to facilitate community
participation in evaluating the three DSWD core social protection programs. He also mentioned that a
pre-test was done in Gumaca, Quezon and that the days workshop is part of the roll-out stage which is
simultaneously being conducted in three parts of the country: MacArthur, Leyte; Libmanan, Camarines
Sur; and Gigaquit, Surigao del Norte.
The participants were then given metacards and markers to write their expectations from the workshop,
answering the question: Bakit kayo nagpunta dito? After the sharing of ideas among the participants,
the metacards were posted on the wall and read out by Don. Some of the expectations included those
that pertain to information on:

What further benefits they will gain from the programs

What the ANSA-EAP will teach or impart

What their obligations are as beneficiaries of Kalahi-CIDSS

The extent of government help or assistance to their barangay

Maybe the government want to know the status of the program (Pantawid) in their community.

Does the government want to know or assess how people have benefitted from SLP?
Don affirmed that the beneficiaries participation would meet the expressed expectations: there will be
new information that would be learned, there will be discussions on the three DSWD programs, and
there will be discussions on the beneficiaries roles in the programs.
Furthermore, Don explained that Social Accountability is the framework which the DSWD wishes to use
to expand its programs. He mentioned that the DSWD has always been for peoples participation in the
programs. Using social accountability, the agency wishes to engage communities or beneficiaries in
assessing the three programs and move forward to improve these.
28
Don explained the concept and components of

Social Accountability, presenting the formula of
which is: Social Accountability = (Constructive
Engagement x Citizen Monitoring)assertiveness.
The discussion was done in Filipino: constructive
engagement, i.e., makabuluhang pakikipagugnayan sa pagitan ng pamahalaan at
mamamayan multiplied by citizen monitoring,
i.e., pagsubaybay at pagmamatyag. Both of these
are then multiplied by the element of assertiveness.
With citizens who organize themselves, they would
have the power to engage with the government
and participate in government programs. Social
accountability allows for citizens to watch and
monitor public funds and how these are being
used. The Community Scorecard (CSC) is a tool
for citizens to monitor government projects. The
flow of the program was then explained.
OPEN SPACE
The principles of Open Space were explained,
followed by an activity where participants were to
answer the questions, Ano ang dapat na ibinibigay
ko/sa akin ng programa? (on green metacard)
and Ano ang dapat na kalidad nito? (on yellow
metacard).

INDICATORS
Beneficiaries
Before grouping into the three DSWD programs,
Don invited the participants to participate in the
icebreaker, Maayos kong magagawa ang CSC
ko. He then explained the terms Input, Standard,
and Indicator: Input refers to the provisions of the
program; Standard refers to the quality of the input;
and Indicator is the measurement or gauge for the
standard. He also gave simplified examples for
the beneficiaries to better understand the terms.
Afterwards, the group was divided into the three
programs. Don facilitated the discussions of the
SLP group, Sam Poblete (Sam) for the KC group,
and Imelda Perez (Emy) for the Pantawid group.
The three facilitators are members of the ANSAEAP DSWD-CSC Team.
Below is the output of the Pantawid beneficiaries:
Some of the answers that were captured and

clustered were:
On green metacards: cash grants, information,
infrastructure,
health
support,
education,
scholarship
On yellow metacards: wasto, maopay, sapat
The participants were glad that they were able
to express their feelings and opinions about the
programs through the Open Space activity.
29
Below is the output of the KC service providers:
INTERFACE
For the interface, the beneficiaries and the service
providers per program sat together to discuss their
outputs from the prioritization and scoring session.
In each of the groups, the engagement between
the beneficiaries and the service providers was
mostly clarificatory. Each program came up with
an action plan which will be later presented to the
plenary.
PLENARY
For the plenary session, representatives from each
of the three programs presented their respective
action plans.
Pantawid Pamilya
Below is the output of the SLP beneficiaries:

KC-NCDDP
30
SLP
Afterwards, the participants gave their feedback

on the CSC. It was noted that many of the
feedbacks were about learning (we learned how
we could improve our programs according to the
CSC; we learned a lot; we learned how we
would improve).
The CSC process enabled the service providers to
hear the issues and concerns of the beneficiaries.
The beneficiaries evaluation mirrors how the
programs were implemented. It also gives ideas
on how the next or future programs should be
undertaken. Expressed also was the hope that all
the concerns raised will be addressed a plea to
the organizers to relay the participants issues and
concerns to the government.
CLOSING
The program ended at around 5:30 in the afternoon.
31
GIGAQUIT, SURIGAO DEL NORTE

2-3 DECEMBER 2015
DAY 1: BARANGAY SICO-SICO

Venue: Balanghai Hotel, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte
PRELIMINARIES
The beneficiaries left their homes at 3:00 in the morning and arrived at the workshop venue at 7:30.
Morning snacks were served immediately. The program then started at 8:33, with a prayer and the
national anthem. Afterwards, Edward Gacusana (Edward), member of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC
Team, introduced ANSA-EAP and the concepts Community Scorecard and Social Accountability. Mycel,
DSWD Central Office staff, then introduced the three DSWD core social protection programs. The
conference room was half-filled with beneficiaries and service providers of the three programs. There
were only a few service providers. The beneficiaries were mainly occupying the front while the service
providers were seated behind the beneficiaries.
OPEN SPACE
To make the participants feel at ease, the principles of the Open Space activity were explained in
Filipino. They were then asked to write on two metacards their answers to the questions, Ano ang
dapat na ibinibigay ko/sa akin ng programa? (on green metacard) and Ano ang dapat na kalidad
nito? (on yellow metacard).
Service Providers
32
Keow Abanto (Keow) and Ruzette Manabat

(Ruzette), who are both members of the ANSAEAP DSWD-CSC Team, were assigned to facilitate
the discussions of the service providers. Keow
started the Open Space activity by introducing
the Open Space principles. She discussed the
mechanics in Bisaya so that the service providers
will feel comfortable in expressing themselves
in their local language. The facilitators then
distributed green and yellow metacards and
asked the participants to write on the metacards
their answers to the questions, Ano ang dapat na
ibinibigay ko/sa akin ng programa? (on the green
metacard) and Ano ang dapat na kalidad nito?
(on the yellow metacard). Most of the service
providers answered standards such as Time and
Commitment, which were not expected answers
that could be incorporated to the prioritization
of inputs. Ruzette expounded the Open Space
answers before proceeding to the prioritization of
inputs, standards, and indicators.
Edward facilitated the discussion of the KC

beneficiaries. Similar to the Pantawid beneficiaries,
the KC beneficiaries were mostly satisfied with their
priority indicators and were only highly unsatisfied
with the indicators under the grant input.
Edward also facilitated the discussion of the SLP

beneficiaries. The SLP beneficiaries were also
overall satisfied with their priority indicators. They
were unsatisfied with the indicators related to the
repayment scheme and sufficiency of funds. The
INDICATORS
beneficiaries preferred to use Bisaya in identifying
By 9:30, the program proceeded to the research- standards and indicators.
based inputs, standards, and indicators. The
facilitators instructed the participants to choose
which of the research-based inputs should be the
priorities, and then identify three to four standards,
and two to three indicators to complete their CSCs.
Afterwards, the participants rated their priority
indicators.
Beneficiaries
Nikki facilitated the discussion of the Pantawid
beneficiaries. It is worth noting that the
beneficiaries were generally satisfied with their
priority indicators. There are only a few indicators
they were unsatisfied with.
33
INTERFACE
Service Providers
The prioritization of inputs, standards, and Keow
facilitated the discussion of the Pantawid service
providers. They stressed the inaccessibility of
schools to some barangays, insufficiency of grant,
and inconsistency of data when it comes to the
beneficiaries information. They were unsatisfied
with most of their priority indicators.
Ruzette facilitated the discussion of the KC service

providers. They were able to identify six inputs but
have clustered some inputs such as KC staff and
community empowerment facilitator (CEF) under
training of staff, and community assembly, system
of project selection, and capacity development of
CVs under CEAC.
By 1:10, the program proceeded to the interface.

The SLP and Pantawid groups remained in
the main conference room while the KC group
proceeded to the small conference room.
KC-NCDDP
Keow and Ruzette facilitated the interface meeting
of the KC group. To start the session, Keow asked
both parties (the beneficiaries and the service
providers) to compare the outputs. Keow asked
each group to explain the identified priorities and
ratings, as well as to raise questions if they have
any. During the reporting, the service providers
were actually not satisfied with the indicator of the
newly hired MCT staff, as they realized that they
had problems with the replacement of staff during
the cycle. The barangay chairperson among
the beneficiaries dominated the discussion and
seemed to be very knowledgeable about the
program. The beneficiaries had a problem only
with the processing of grants as it felt very tedious
for them. In summary, the service providers had
more unsatisfied ratings than the beneficiaries,
and so the former have more issues to be resolved
for the next session. The facilitators asked
whether the beneficiaries were affected with the
change of score in the newly hired MCT staff.
The beneficiaries responded that they would just
accept whichever staff; therefore it does not affect
them in any way.
PLENARY
By 4:00, the facilitators asked the groups to present
the results of the interface meeting.
Pantawid Pamilya
There is only one SLP service provider for the

region; thus, there was only one person identifying
standards and indicators. Keow interviewed the
SLP service provider, who was satisfied with most
of the identified indicators.
34
One Pantawid service provider and one beneficiary

presented the action plan of the Pantawid group.
The service provider, however, dominated the
reporting. The recommendations were equally
based on the unsatisfied indicators of the
beneficiaries side and the service providers side.
KC-NCDDP
The KC groups action plan mostly consisted of
the service providers issues, as the beneficiaries
had also mentioned during the interface that they
will just have to get used to the tedious processing
of grants.
By 4:45, Edward gave a refresher of what happened

the entire day and then asked for feedback from
the participants. He asked the participants to write
down the positive comments on a blue metacard
and negative comments on a pink metacard.
Plan of activities
Expertise
Activeness of facilitators and participants
Specific action planning
Ideal lecture
Systematic coaching
Time management
More activities should be in the program
Reach of information regarding the activity
Short notice of the activity
Not much energizers
The activity should be done in Surigao del Norte
CLOSING
The program ended around 5:00 in the afternoon.
SLP
One SLP service provider and one beneficiary
presented the action plan of the SLP group. The
main concerns of the group were on the timely
release of funds/grants and the lack of staff as
there is only one SLP service provider for the
entire region.
35
DAY 2: BARANGAY VILLAFRANCA

Venue: Balanghai Hotel, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte
PRELIMINARIES
The program started at 9:35 in the morning, with a prayer and the national anthem. Nikki Gregorio (Nikki),
member of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team, proceeded by introducing the event and presenting the
program flow to the participants. Afterwards, Edward Gacusana (Edward), who is also a member of the
ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team, introduced ANSA-EAP and the concepts Community Scorecard and
Social Accountability. Kevin, DSWD Central Office staff, then introduced the three DSWD core social
protection programs. An icebreaker followed to keep the participants attentive.
OPEN SPACE
By 9:55, the Open Space acitivty started with an introduction of its principles. Edward then asked the
participants to sit in random and not according to their programs. During this activity, the participants
were able to express themselves in their local language as Keow Abanto (Keow), who is a member
of the ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team, and Ahmid Bualan (Ahmid), DSWD Central Office staff, were
present to translate and cluster the metacards.
Edward expounded the ideas as Amid tried to translate these into local language for all beneficiaries to
understand. Soon after the activity, morning snacks were served. The participants were then asked to
group themselves according to program for the prioritization of inputs, standards, and indicators.
36

INDICATORS
Edward facilitated the discussion of the SLP

beneficiaries. They flagged the insufficiency of
funds, the insufficiency of SLP staff, and short
notices on trainings.
Nikki facilitated the discussion of the Pantawid

beneficiaries, together with Amid to help translate
the objectives of the session. One of the few
things they raised was their unsatisfied rating
on medicines and health facilities. They also
raised a concern about the insufficiency of cash
transfer. The Pantawid beneficiaries gave positive
feedbacks on the rest of their priority indicators.
The session ended at 12:20 for the lunch break.

The groups were informed to choose a reporter who
will share the groups output to all beneficiaries.
INTERFACE
By 1:15, the session resumed with Edward leading
a warm-up. Nikki then gave a refresher on what
happened in the previous session. Afterwards,
the program proceeded to the sharing of outputs.
After the sharing, the participants were asked
to group themselves per program, this time, the
service providers joining the beneficiaries. The
SLP and Pantawid groups remained in the main
conference room while the KC group proceeded
to the small conference room.
KC-NCDDP
Keow and Ruzette facilitated the interface meeting

Keow and Ruzette facilitated the interface
meeting of the KC group. The service providers
started to explain their priorities and scores to
the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries were then
asked to raise questions regarding the output
Keow and Ruzette facilitated the discussion of of the service providers. The beneficiaries also
the KC beneficiaries. Most of their concerns were explained their output to the service providers.
on grant, specifically the grant amount and the The facilitators then asked the beneficiaries on
sustainability of the assistance provided to them. what they feel about the newly hired MCT staff.
They also flagged a concern about allowances for Unlike the participants from the previous day,
community volunteers (CVs). The KC beneficiaries the beneficiaries for this session had agreed that
were very active in identifying priority standards there is a problem with the replacement of staff in
and indicators, as well as in scoring the indicators. the middle of the cycle. They also mentioned that
this was not a turnover issue. It was really about
the attitude and thinking of the newly hired MCT
staff and their predecessor.
37
PLENARY
SLP
By 4:00, the program proceeded to the presentation The action plan of the SLP group included notices
of action plans. The reporters had been composed on trainings and seminars, as well as additional
of one service provider and one beneficiary. SLP staff.
Questions were raised during the presentations to
clarify information.
Pantawid Pamilya
The Pantawid group agreed to discuss the lack
of medicines on the barangay assembly for the
2017 budget. The other groups laughed when
they realized that the issue will be discussed two
years later. One of the Pantawid service providers
then defended as to why this was the result of the
action planning.
By 4:30, Edward asked the participants for

feedbacks.
The workshop gave them more knowledge about
the programs.
The facilitators were active and have helped the
beneficiaries in understanding things in an easier
way.
The venue and the food were good.
KC-NCDDP
The concern of the KC group is that the beneficiaries
will need to await for the selection process so
that they would be able to sustain their projects
under KC. As for their concern about standard
allowance, the beneficiaries agreed that this will
depend on the barangay council as KC does not
really provide monetary allowances for CVs.
38

They would like the CSC to be held near their
barangay.
There should be an earlier notice.
CLOSING
The program ended at 4:45 in the afternoon.
APPENDICES
39
40
Time
8:008:15
(15m)
8:158:30
(20m)
8:308:55
(15m)
Preliminaries
(Session 1)
Morning snack
Activity
Registration
Welcome the DSWD

program service
providers and
community
beneficiaries.
Objectives
Get list of
participants.
1. National Anthem and Prayer.

2. Recognize the DSWD program service providers and
beneficiaries.
3. Provide the objectives of the roll-out activity.
4. Introduce ANSA-EAP, CSC, social accountability, and
the 3 DSWD programs.
5. Show the flow of activities.
Process/Method
Participants register names and other details on the
attendance sheet.
WORKSHOP MODULE
Flow of activities
visual aid, metacards, pentel pens,
masking tape
1 big room for 60

pax
Resources
Attendance sheet;
pens
As a social accountability tool, the Community Scorecard (CSC) supplements DSWDs regular monitoring and evaluation (M&E) with the
participatory approach. The project aims to introduce the CSC as the local service providers systematic guide for gathering and analyzing the
community beneficiaries feedback on the programs and co-determining appropriate courses of action for improvement. Specifically, the ANSAEAP aims to:
1. Adapt the CSC design and process in DSWDs core programs and their convergence to enhance the monitoring and evaluation from the
perspective of the beneficiary households and communities.
2. Introduce the CSC tool and process to selected DSWD staff and partner CSOs in the planning, monitoring and evaluation of DSWDs
Convergence Program in identified pilot areas.
3. Provide policy recommendations as input to develop and/or strengthen the DSWD Social Accountability Framework.
ROLL-OUT OF CSC ON DSWD CORE SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS

Enhancing Social Accountability and Community Participation in DSWD Core Social Protection
Programs through the Community Scorecard Process
2-3 December 2015
APPENDIX 1
Workshop Design
41
9:259:50
(25m)
8:559:00
(5m)
9:009:25
(25m)
Exchange of
ideas and
clustering
(Session 2b)
Open Space
(Session 2a)
Grouping
Bring out top of

mind interests of the
participants in the
program.
Constitute an
atmosphere of
participation.
Introduce ANSAEAP team and

DSWD observers.
State the objectives

of the roll-out
activity.
1. Quick discussion on the principles of Open Space.

2. Count off (1 to 3) to form 3 groups and sit by number.
3. Give simplified examples of input and standard.
4. Participants answer the following questions using
meta-cards:
-Green (input/idea): Ano ang dapat na
ibinibigay ko sa programa? / Ano ang dapat na
ibinibigay sa akin ng programa?
-Yellow (standard/quality): Ano ang dapat na
kalidad nito?
5. Give guidelines for writing: malaki, 1 idea/papel, 5-7
salita
1. Ask the participants to form 2 lines facing each other.
2. Ask the participants to talk about their idea with the
person in front of them.
Key messages:
-The activity is part of the DSWDs continuing effort to
involve community-level stakeholders in the program
implementation.
-Participants from government and communities can
jointly define the agenda for M&E.
-The implementers want CSC to process information
about the program and ways to improve it.
-The beneficiaries want CSC because it facilitates
feedbacking on program implementation.
Grouping for Open Space: one group for the service
providers and one group for the beneficiaries.
6. Ask the participants about their expectations

(expectation setting)
Principles of open
space visual aid,
meta-cards, pentel
pens, masking tape
1 facilitator and 1
documenter per
room
2 rooms for 30 pax

each
42
9:5012:00
(2h10
m)
Prioritization
and scoring of
inputs,
standards, and
indicators
(Session 3a)
Key messages:
-Program stakeholders know ground-level issues and
concerns and they can propose to prioritize selected
areas for attention and action.
Key messages:
-Its a free and open discussion.
-What makes the program stick to you as a stakeholder?
Identify participants 1. Recap of the Open Space results.
priority inputs,
2. Group into the 3 DSWD programs.
standards, and
3. Introduce the parts of the scorecard and define: input
(dapat na ibinibigay ko sa / sa akin ng programa)
indicators.
standard (kalidad), indicator (sukatan ng kalidad).
Guide the
4. Instruct the participants to come up with their own
priority inputs, standards, and indicators (Show only the
participants in
coming up with their research-based inputs)
own priority inputs,
5. Tell them to post their priority inputs, standards and
indicators on the blank template1.
standards, and
indicators.
6. Tell them to score/rate each indicator by using the
following emoticons. Ask them to write the reasons for
Capture participants their scores.
assessment of the
Mahusay na naipapatupad
program
Maayos na naipapatupad
implementation in a
May konting kakulangan sa pagpapatupad
visual image.
Malaki ang kakulangan sa pagpapatupad
7. To prepare for the next session, ask them to select a
group member to report the result of the discussion.
3. Assist the participants in posting their answers on the

wall.
4. Cluster the ideas (similar inputs and similar standards)
Blank template1,
research-based
inputs written on
meta-cards, blank
meta-cards, pentel
pens, masking tape
1 facilitator and 1
documenter per
room
2 rooms for 30 pax

each
43
1:451:50
(5m)
1:502:35
(45m)
Compare and
contrast the two
groups (service
providers and
beneficiaries)
selected inputs,
standards,
indicators, and
scores.
Interface
discussion on
inputs,
standards,
indicators, and
scores
(Session 4b)
Grouping
Provide background
on the purpose of
the interface and its
significance.
Lunch
12:30
-1:30
(1h)
1:301:45
(15m)
Introduction to
Interface
(Session 4a)
Sharing of
priorities and
scores
(Session 3b)
12:00
12:30
(30m)
Key messages:
-Its okay to have opposing opinions since each group
comes from different experiences and perspectives.
Note for the facilitator/documenter: make sure to capture

the common ISIs, the changes in scores, and
disagreements, if any (use DocuTemplate2)
1. Identify similar inputs, standards, and indicators (ISIs).

2. Identify items where the groups differ.
3. Inquire if its possible to agree on the list.
4. Compare the scores. Inquire if possible to have a
common score.
5. Identify the areas of agreement and disagreement.
Grouping for Interface: one group per DSWD program

(combined service providers and beneficiaries)
Accomplished
template 1; blank
template2; pentel
pens
1 facilitator/
documenter per
room
3 rooms for 20 pax

each
1. Ice-breaker.
1 big room for 60
2. Recap of the program flow.
pax
3. State the purpose and the significance of the interface.
Note for the documenter: make sure to capture the

reasons for the scores (use DocuTemplate1)
-Scoring is an expression of power. Use it to give honest

assessment and improve performance.
The selected group member will present the groups
priorities, scores, and reasons for the scores (2
comments/questions will be entertained).
44
4:254:45
(20m)
3:203:40
(20m)
3:404:25
(45m)
2:353:20
(45m)
Sharing of
action plans
with the
plenary
(Session 5a)
Participants
feedback on
the CSC
process
(Session 5b)
Break
Interface
discussion on
recommendatio
ns and plans
(Session 4c)
Identify the CSC

process strengths
and areas for
improvement from
the participants
perspective.
Summarize
recommendations
and action plans.
Develop action
plans to monitor the
action on the
recommendations
Formulate
recommendations to
improve program
implementation
based on prior
discussions.
1. Review the expectations set at the start of the

workshop
2. Meta-cards are distributed.
-Blue: Strengths
-Pink: Areas for improvement
3. Open forum.
1. Ice-breaker.
2. The selected group members will present the groups
action plan (2 comments/questions will be entertained).
Key message: Recommendations are useful when

backed up by a plan of action (for the next 100 days / 3
months)
-Meeting points are possible if the parties understand

each others positions.
1. Using blank template2, write the indicator and the
corresponding recommendation (anong pagbabago ang
gustong mangyari?).
2. Corresponding to each recommendation should be
action steps (anong konkretong hakbang?) with identified
responsible person and date when these will be done.
3. Facilitating (maaaring makatulong) and constraining
(maaaring makahadlang) factors may also be identified.
4. To prepare for the plenary, ask the group to select 2
group members (1 service provider and 1 beneficiary) to
report the result of the discussion.
Meta-cards, pentel
pens
Accomplished
template2
1 big room for 60
pax
1 big room for 60

pax
45
Closing
(Session 6)
Share information
on how the
information will be
used.
Extend appreciation
to the participants,
DSWD, and
everyone involved in
the event.
WORKSHOP TEMPLATES
Standards
Indicators
Indicators Rekomendasyon
(Sukatan) (Anong pagbabago ang
gustong mangyari?)
Score
Anong gagawin?
(Anong konkretong hakbang?)
Template2: Interface and Action Planning (one for each program)
Input
Certificates
1 big room for 60

pax
Sinong
Kailan? Maaaring
gagawa?
makatulong o
makahadlang
Reason
Key messages:
-Participants time has been used wisely.
-Shared responsibility in ensuring that improvement in
the program will come out of the process.
Template1: Prioritization and Scoring (three for the service providers and three for the beneficiaries)
4:455:00
(15m)
Key message: Participants opinion on the process is

valuable and will be taken into account in the design of
the process.
1. Synthesis
2. Distribution of certificate of attendance
3. Photo ops
APPENDIX 2
Pantawid Pamilya Research-Based Inputs, Standards, and Indicators (ISIs)
INPUT
1. Pagpili ng
beneficiaries
STANDARDS
Pagiging tama at
malinaw
2.
Kalusugan at
Conditionalities Nutrisyon ng mga
Buntis
Kalusugan at
Nutrisyon ng mga
Bata
Family Development
Session
Mga Kondisyonalidad
sa Pag-aaral
3. Cash
Transfer
payments
Kakayahang Maabot
Akmang petsa ng
release
Tamang Grants
4. Pantawid
Staff
46
Availability
Kaalaman sa
programa
Kalidad ng
interaksyon
Koordinasyon
INDICATORS
- Lahat ng benepisaryo ay nabansagang "poor"
ng Listahanan
- Lahat ng kilalang mga benebisaryo ay may mga
anak na 0-18 ang edad, o may buntis sa pamilya
noong panahon ng pagpili sa kanila
- Nakakapagpakonsulta sa Local Health Unit
para sa pre-natal check-up
- Angkop ang kaalaman ng buntis sa mga
serbisyong BEmONC/CEmONC1
- Angkop ang dami ng tagapagbigay ng
serbisyong BEmONC/CEmONC
- Nakakapagpakonsulta sa Local Health Unit
para sa post-natal check-up
- Nakakapagpabakuna ang mga bata
- Angkop ang bilang ng bakuna para sa mga bata
- Natitimbang ang bata sa health center
- Nakakapagbigay ng pampapurga sa mga bata
- Madaling napupuntahan ng bata ang health
center
- Angkop ang bilang ng mga doktor at nurse sa
komunidad
- Nakakapagsasagawa ng FDS bawat buwan
- Angkop sa pangangailangan ng komunidad ang
mga paksa
- Madaling napupuntahan ang paaralan
- Angkop ang dami ng mga guro sa mga
paaralan
- Angkop ang dami ng mga silid-aralan sa mga
paaralan
- Angkop ang dami ng mga libro sa mga paaralan
- Nakukuha ng benepisyaryo ang grants sa
madaling paraan
- Nakukuha ng benepisyaryo ang grants sa
tamang panahon
- Natatanggap ang pera batay sa petsa na sinabi
- Magkatugma ang records ng benepisaryo sa
grants sa nakukuha
- Pagiging available ng front line staff para sa
mga tanong
- Nasasagot ang mga tanong hinggil sa
programa
- Maayos ang pakikitungo sa mga benepisyaryo
- Naibibigay ang reports at updates sa Municipal
Action
Basic/ Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric and Neonatal Care
5. Parent
leader
6. Community
assemblies
7. Compliance
verification
8. Beneficiary
data
management
Kalidad ng
interaksyon
Koordinasyon
Pagiging akma ng
lugar para sa pulong
Pagiging tama at
malinaw
Kakayahang Maabot
Akmang
impormasyon
Pagiging epektibo
9. Pagtanggap
sa hinaing
(Grievance
mechanism)
Kakayahang Maabot
Pagsagot sa hinaing
Paghawak sa kaso
na labas pa sa mga
hinaing
10.
Salubungan ng
mga programa
(Convergence)
Nagkakatulungan
ang mga programa
Hindi nagdudulot ng
kalituhan
- Maayos ang pakikitungo sa mga kapwabenepisyaryo

- Naiimbita ang mga benepisyaro sa mga pulong
- Distansya ng lugar ng pulong mula sa erya o
komunidad
- Pagiging presko o may bintilador ang lugar ng
pulong
- Kasapatan ng laki ng lugar para sa bilang ng
mga tao sa pulong
- Pagkakaroon ng gamit na kailangan sa pulong
(Pentel, papel)
- Pagiging tama ang impormasyon na nakalagay
sa records
- Pagkakaroon ng updated forms/papeles na
kailangang sagutan
- Sapat na impormasyon sa proseso ng pagupdate ng papeles
- Akma ang petsa at oras na sinasabi para sa
mga deadline
- Akma ang paksa (agenda) sa pulong
- Pagtanggap sa records update ng hindi
lalagpas sa dalawang payout cycle
- Alam ng benepisyaryo ang tungkol sa grievance
mechanism
- Alam ng benepisyaryo ang proseso ng
paglabas ng mga hinaing
- Nakokonsidera ang kalagayan ng naglalabas
ng hinaing (may proteksyon)
- Nagagawa ang imbestigasyon upang maaral
ang hinaing
- Nakakatanggap ng malinaw at maagap na
sagot o feedback
- Natutukoy ang nangangailangan ng dagdag na
tulong
- Nalalaman ang hinaing na hindi nasabi sa
grievance mechanism
- Nairerekomenda ang kaso sa tamang grupo o
ahensya
- Nakakatulong ang KC sa Pantawid
- Nakakatulong ang SLP sa Pantawid
- Natutukoy ang kaibahan ng tatlong programa
(Pantawid, KC, SLP)
- Angkop ang schedule ng pulong ng tatlong
programa (hindi nagtatamaan)
47
APPENDIX 3
KC-NCDDP Research-Based Inputs, Standards, and Indicators (ISIs)
I.
The Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of

Social Services-National Community-Driven Development Program (KC-NCDDP)
Approved by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III on 18 January 2013 and
officially launched on 23 June 2014, the Kalahi-CIDSS-NCDDP is the expansion into a
national scale of the operations of community-driven development (CDD).
a. Objectives2
To empower communities by treating them not as passive recipients of assistance
and services but as partners in development.
To improve local governance by improving peoples engagement with and access
to their LGUs by facilitating citizens and LGU partnership in planning, budgeting,
execution and monitoring.
To reduce poverty by implementing barangay-level projects that respond to the
communities felt needs and problems.
b. Program Components3
Component 1: Barangay (community) sub-grants for planning and implementation
Component 2: Capability-Building and Implementation Support (CBIS)
Component 3: Project Administration, Monitoring, and Evaluation
II. KC-NCDDP Inputs, Standards, and Indicators

INPUT
1 System of
project selection
STANDARDS
Responsiveness
to community
problems and
needs
[Tumutugon sa
mga problema at
pangangailangan
ng komunidad]
Adherence to
environmental
and social
safeguards
[Tinitiyak na
maprotektahan
ang kalikasan at
vulnerable
groups]
INDICATORS
Priority given to urgency
[Pagbibigay prayoridad sa pinakakailangan]
Strong consideration for the problems and
needs of vulnerable groups4
[Pagsasaalang-alang sa mga problema at
pangangailangan ng mga vulnerable groups]
Ensured equivalent benefits to vulnerable
groups
[Pagtiyak sa pantay na benepisyo para sa
vulnerable groups]
Ensured protection of vulnerable groups
against potential adverse impact
[Pagtiyak sa proteksyon laban sa potensyal na
panganib sa vulnerable groups]
http://ncddp.dswd.gov.ph/site/page/1/4 (retrieved on 13 November 2015)

KALAHI CIDSS NCDDP OPERATIONS MANUAL.pdf, pp. 4-7 (retrieved via
http://ncddp.dswd.gov.ph/site/download on 13 November 2015)
4 Vulnerable groups refer to women, IPs, youth, senior citizens, farmers, fisherfolk, laborers, informal
sector, PWDs, GIDAs, CAAs, and Pantawid Pamilya households
2
3
48
2 Grant
3 KC-NCDDP staff
and MLGU
assistance
4 Community
Empowerment
Facilitator (CEF)
Timely release of Following the 5-5-5 rule5 for fund release

funds
[Pagsunod sa 5-5-5 rule para sa pagproseso
[Hindi nahuhuli sa
ng pondo]
pagbibigay ng
pondo]
Attitude
Ease of interaction
[Maayos na pag[Mahusay makisalamuha at madaling lapitan]
uugali]
Trustworthiness
[Madaling makipagpalagayang-loob]
Effective
Use of simple language
communication
[Madaling maintindihan ang sinasabi at
[Epektibo
gumagamit ng simpleng lenggwahe]
makipag-usap]
Responsiveness
Encouraging and open to reactions and
to community
inquiries [Naghihikayat ng at bukas sa mga
problems and
reaksyon at katanungan]
needs
Ability to come up with recommended
[Tumutugon sa
solutions for identified community problems
mga problema at
and needs [Kakayahang makapagrekomenda
pangangailangan
ng solusyon para sa mga problema at
ng komunidad]
pangangailangan ng komunidad]
Completeness of information in answering
inquiries
[Kakayahang makapagbigay ng kumpletong
sagot]
Attitude
Ease of interaction
[Maayos na pag[Mahusay makisalamuha at madaling lapitan]
uugali]
Trustworthiness
[Madaling makipagpalagayang-loob]
Effective
communication
[Madaling maintindihan ang sinasabi at
[Epektibogumagamit ng simpleng lenggwahe]
makipag-usap]
Representation of Ensured representation of vulnerable groups
vulnerable
[Pagtiyak sa representasyon ng vulnerable
groups
groups]
[Tinitiyak ang
representasyon
ng vulnerable
groups]
5 The 5-5-5 rule means 5 days to review at ACT, 5 days at sub-regional level, and 5 days at regional
level for the processing of funds to download to community accounts
49
Responsiveness
to community
problems and
needs
[Tumutugon sa
mga problema at
pangangailangan
ng komunidad]
5 Community
Assemblies
Accessibility
Representation of
vulnerable
groups
[Tinitiyak ang
representasyon
ng vulnerable
groups]
Effective
communication
[Epektibo
makipag-usap]
Responsiveness
to community
problems and
needs
[Tumutugon sa
mga problema at
pangangailangan
ng komunidad]
6 Capacity
Development6
Representation of
vulnerable
groups

inquiries
[Naghihikayat ng at bukas sa mga reaksyon at
katanungan]
and needs
[Kakayahang makapagrekomenda ng
solusyon para sa mga problema at
Completeness of information in answering
inquiries
[Kakayahang makapagbigay ng kumpletong
sagot]
Accessibility of venue considering distance
and time of travel
[Distansya ng lugar ng pulong mula sa erya o
komunidad]
Appropriate schedule
[Angkop na schedule para sa miting]
Duration
[Haba ng miting]
Ensured representation of vulnerable groups
groups]

[Madaling maintindihan ang pinag-uusapan at
gumagamit ng simpleng lenggwahe]
Effectiveness of visual aids
[Madaling maintindihan ang visual aids]
inquiries [Naghihikayat ng at bukas sa mga
reaksyon at katanungan]
and needs
[Kakayahang makapagrekomenda ng
solusyon para sa mga problema at
Completeness of information regarding next
steps to take
[Kakayahang makapagbigay ng mga susunod
na hakbang]
Ensured representation of vulnerable groups
groups]
Capacity development for community volunteers (CVs) who compose the following: the BRT, PPT,
BGC, BSPMC (Procurement Team, Project Implementation Teams; Monitoring and Inspectorate
Team; Audit and Inventory Teams; and others), BAC, Finance Committee, and O&M Committee
6
50
of Community
Volunteers
7 Grievance
Redress System
[Tinitiyak ang
representasyon
ng vulnerable
groups]
Effective
coordination
[Epektibong
koordinasyon]
Clarity of
standards and
procedures (for
planning,
budgeting,
execution,
monitoring)
[Malinaw at
naiintindihan ang
mga pamantayan
at pamamaraan]
Clarity of roles
[Malinaw at
naiintindihan ang
mga tungkulin]
Accessibility
Proper handling
[Maayos na
paghawak sa
grievance]
8 Monitoring
9 Convergence
Organized record
keeping
[Masinop na
pagrerekord]
Programs are
complementing
each other
Sustained representation of vulnerable

groups [Pagtiyak sa pang-matagalang
representasyon ng vulnerable groups]
Ability to work together
[Kakayahang magtrabaho nang sama-sama]
Sufficiency of information about standards and
procedures
[May sapat na impormasyon tungkol sa mga
pamantayan at pamamaraan]
Ease of following templates or forms (e.g., for
developing proposals, cost estimates,
technical plans, and RFR)
[Madaling gamitin ang templates at forms tulad
ng sa pagbuo ng proposal, cost estimates,
technical plans, at RFR]
Sufficiency of information about specific roles
and responsibilities
[May sapat na impormasyon tungkol sa mga
tungkulin at responsibilidad]
Knowledge about varied ways of filing
complaints
[Alam ng mga beneficiaries ang ibat-ibang
paraan ng paglabas ng mga hinaing]
Clarity of procedures for filing complaints
[Malinaw ang pamamaraan ng paglalabas ng
mga hinaing]
Ensured protection of the complainant
[Pagtiyak sa protekyon ng naglalabas ng
hinaing (proteksyon ng katauhan/identity)]
Immediate response
[Maagap na tugon]
Proper documentation
[Maayos na dokumentasyon]
Timeliness of resolving the case
[Tagal ng pagresolba ng hinaing]
Records are updated from time to time
[Pagkakaroon ng updated na records]
Records are kept in safe places
[Pag-iingat sa mga records]
Pantawid Pamilya beneficiaries benefit from
KC-NCDDP
[Nakikinabang ang Pantawid Pamilya
beneficiaries sa KC-NCDDP]
Schedule of KC-NCDDP meetings are not in
conflict with Pantawid Pamilya or SLP
meetings
[Ang mga pulong para sa KC-NCDDP ay hindi
tumatama sa mga pulong para sa Pantawid
Pamilya o SLP]
51
Familiarity
[Pagtukoy sa
tamang
programa]
Knowledge about the difference between KCNCDDP, Pantawid Pamilya, and SLP
[Natutukoy ang kaibahan ng KC-NCDDP sa
Pantawid Pamilya at sa SLP]
References:
(1) Kalahi-CIDSS-NCDDP Frequently Asked Questions: http://ncddp.dswd.gov.ph/site/faqs
(2) Accelerated Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC) Activity Matrix, Version 16
September 2014 [DROM.NCDDP Final Draft Accelerated CEAC Activity Matrix for TOT
ver. 16 September 2014]
(3) KALAHI CIDSS NCDDP OPERATIONS MANUAL.pdf (retrieved via
http://ncddp.dswd.gov.ph/site/download on 13 November 2015)
52
APPENDIX 4
SLP Research-Based Inputs, Standards, and Indicators (ISIs)
The Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) Overview
The Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) provides identified poor and vulnerable families and individuals the
appropriate income-generating opportunities to help improve their level of economic
sufficiency.
The programs six main stages of implementation are 1) Area Identification, 2) Participant
Identification, 3) Project Identification, 4) Project Review and Approval, 5) Project
Implementation, and 6) Monitoring and Evaluation. There are two distinct features of the
sequence of stages:
-
Stages 1 to 3 are very closely interrelated that during actual implementation, all three
should be considered simultaneously (see section 1-3. Area, Participant, and Project
Identification).
Stage 6, the last stage, directs the process back to stages 1 to 3, creating a cycle of
planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation, to ensure that the necessary
additional interventions are carried out, until the participants reach the targeted level
of economic sufficiency (see section 6. Monitoring and Evaluation).
The program specifically targets the four economic sufficiency indicators of the Social Welfare
and Development Indicators (SWDI) of the DSWD: a) employable skills, b) employment, c)
income, and d) social security and access to financial institutions. The program facilitates
interventions that expand the livelihood asset base of the participants (human, social, physical,
natural, and financial capital) to capacitate them in being able to either have gainful
employment or successfully manage a microenterprise.
Objectives
As a program that aims for poverty alleviation, the Sustainable Livelihood Program, by nature,
requires multiple strategies to be able to respond to a variety of poverty contexts and
situations. This need urges the program management (National Program Management Office)
and program implementers (Regional Program Management Office) to continuously innovate
and develop new methods and strategies to be able to provide the most appropriate and most
effective set of interventions and achieve the intended results for the program participants.
On the context of improving the well being of the poor households identified in the National
Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) the Department through the
Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) is mandated to support the target household by actively
facilitating or linking them to economic opportunities that will facilitate their transition from state
of survival to self-sufficiency.
Modalities
Pre-Employment Assistance Fund (PEAF)
Seed Capital Fund (SCF)
Cash for Building Livelihood Assets (CBLA)
Skills Training (ST)
53
THE SLP INPUT TRACKING SYSTEM

PRE-EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE FUND (PEAF)
The Pre-Employment Assistance Fund (PEAF) supports SLP participants needing financial
assistance to acquire the pre-employment requirements of potential or guaranteed employers.
A maximum of Php 5,000.00 may be availed by each participant. The PEAF may be packaged
with other interventions such as ST, CBLA, and the other activities in the Employment
Facilitation series.
INPUT
Paraan ng
Pagpili
STANDARDS
Mga Batayang
Ginamit
Pondo
Kasapatan ng
Pondo
INDICATORS
Napili sa antas ng kahirapan.
Poorest of the poor (100% of participants are
Pantawid Pamilya participants)
Kakayanang Magtrabaho
Malaki ang pag-asa matanggap sa trabaho
Nakakatugon sa mga pangunahing kinakailangan sa
trabaho.
Pre-employment assistance fee covered per eligible
SLP participant is less than or equal to Php 5,000.00
Kaalaman sa proseso ng Grant Request
(Orientation and dialogue with project participants
conducted (including explanation of mode of
payment / release of funds) to address concerns
prior to release of pre-employment assistance)
Kaalaman sa proseso ng Liquidation (Receipts
from actual expenditure made by participants (i.e.,
from availing documentary requirements) secured)
Paraan ng
pagkuha at
paggamit ng
pondo
Pagtatasa ng
Potensyal na
oportunidad na Trabaho
magkatrabaho
Bakanteng trabaho na alam ng benepersaryo at

PDO ng SLP
Pagtatapat ng kakayanan
Pagpasa sa unang panayam sa aplikasyon
Kasunduan sa pagtanggap sa trabaho
Pagpasa sa kabuoang panayam at pinaglilikom na
ng mga kinakailangang requirements
Siguradong
Trabaho
Staff
Kakayanan
Kasapatan ng
SLP staff
Pag-uugali
54
Proposal/
Grant Request
Katanggaptanggap at
Maliwanag
Monitoring and
Evaluation
System
Husay sa
pagpapatupad
ng
pagmomonitor at
pagtatasa
Kaalaman sa proseso ng SLP

Hindi nawawala ang presensya sa pagtugon sa
pangangailangan ng mga beneficiaries
The SLP staff can attend meetings and other
concerns regarding the program
Kagalingan magpaliwanag at maayos lapitan.
Approachable and have the ability to communicate to
beneficiary properly.
Kalinawan at Kadaliang Maintindihan ng mga
kasunduan at gagampanan ng mga benepersaryo.
(includes the coverage of expenses, agreements and
commitment of the beneficiary). Simple and
Understandable.
Nasusulat, kumprehensibo, at napapatupad sa
tamang oras
Documented. Timely Implemented. Comprehensive.
Convergence
Programs are
complementing
each other
Pagtukoy sa
tamang
programa
Nakikinabang ang Pantawid Pamilya beneficiaries

sa SLP
Pantawid Pamilya beneficiaries benefit from SLP
Ang mga pulong para sa SLP ay hindi tumatama
sa mga pulong para sa Pantawid Pamilya o KCNCDDP
Schedule of SLPmeetings are not in conflict with
Pantawid Pamilya or KC-NCDDP meetings.
Natutukoy ang kaibahan ng KC-NCDDP sa
Pantawid Pamilya at sa SLP
SEED CAPITAL FUND (SCF)

The Seed Capital Fund (SCF) is a capacity building grant given to an eligible SLP participant
belonging to an SLP Association. The grant is intended to support the setting up of a
community-based credit and savings facility, and to provide start-up or additional financial
capital for participants who wish to engage in other income-generating projects.
INPUT
Paraan ng
Pagpili
STANDARDS
Mga Batayang
Ginamit
Pondo
Kasapatan ng
Pondo
Panahon ng
pagbigay ng
pondo
Repayment/
Rollback
Scheme
Panahon ng
bayad ng
remittance
INDICATORS
Kagustuhan at kakayanang magpagtayo o
magpatakbo ng negosyo.
Willing and Capable (Participants are at least 16 years
of age; those below 18 years have secured consent
from parent/guardian and demonstrate capacity to
pursue microenterprise venture)
Napili sa antas ng kahirapan.
4Ps Participant (listed under NHTS-PR, or considered
vulnerable as certified by the LGU)
Pagsali sa SLP Association na mayroong hindi
bababa sa limang miyembro.
SLP Association Member (Participants belong to an
organized group with at least 5 members, referred to
as an SLP Association)
Nakakatugon sa pangangailangan ng napiling
livelihood
Sufficient (Seed Capital Fund provided per eligible
SLP participant is less than or equal to Php 10,000.00)
Natatanggap ang pondo sa tamang panahon.
Seed Capital Fund is released to individual members
within two (2) weeks upon approval of proposal or
upon awarding of checks to the SLP Association
Kakayanan ng miyembro na magbayad ng
repayment sa takdang oras.
Individual members are able to remit repayment
equivalent to 100% of the expected repayment due
Nagagawang paikutin o gamitin ang 75% pondo ng
inaasaahang ipon
Individual members are able to mobilize savings
equivalent to at least 75% of the expected savings due
55
Post SCF
Grant
Assistance
Pagiging tuloytuloy ng
programa
SLP Staff
Kakayanan ng
SLP staff
Kasapatan ng
SLP staff
Pakikitungo o
Pag-uugali
Proposal/
Grant
Request
Pagiging
katanggaptanggap ng
proposal
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
System
Convergence
Husay sa
pagpapatupad ng
pagmomonitor at
pagtatasa
Programs are
complementing
each other
Pagtukoy sa
tamang programa
Kakayanan na magbigay ng tulong sa pagrerehistro

ng negosyo (hal.SEC).
Legitimacy (Assistance extended to SLP Association
in securing registration (DOLE, CDA, SEC, or other
entities) to establish legal entity and promote
sustainability)
Kakayanan ng SLP Association na matulungan ang
stakeholders na makakuha ng ibang serbisyo.
Linkage Capability (SLP Association is capacitated to
link with other stakeholders to avail of other services)
Kaalaman sa SLP program.
Knowledgeable on SLP program.
Kagalingan magpaliwanag at madaling lapitan.
Kalinawan ng mga kasunduan at gagampanan ng
mga benepersaryo.
Clear (includes the coverage of expenses,
agreements and commitment of the beneficiary).
Simple and Understandable.
tamang oras
sa SLP
CASH FOR BUILDING LIVELIHOOD ASSETS (CBLA)

Cash for Building Livelihood Assets (CBLA) encourages short-term and labor-intensive
projects that will open opportunities for poor families to augment their income, through the
development of physical and natural assets, while they earn during project implementation.
Projects are best implemented in areas with abundant natural resources, strong support from
the LGU, and participants who are willing to sustain the project.
INPUT
Job
Opportunity
56
STANDARDS
Suitable and
income
generating work
INDICATORS
Short-term Employment (CBLA project duration is 11
days (10 paid work days, day pre-CBLA workers
orientation, and day post-CBLA evaluation))
Paid Work (Daily allowance is equivalent to 75% of

the regional minimum wage. Payment of allowance to
workers not exceeding 14 calendar days after the last
day of work.)
Safety (Conduct of workers orientation including
safety precautions to all identified CBLA participants
at least three (3) days prior to the start of work)
Presence (Accomplishment of log book or daily
attendance by the participants)
Paraan ng
Pagpili
Mga Batayang
Ginamit
SLP Staff
Kakayanan ng
SLP staff
Kasapatan ng
SLP staff
Pakikitungo o
Pag-uugali
Proposal/
Grant
Request
Pagiging
katanggaptanggap ng
proposal
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
System
Convergence
Husay sa
pagpapatupad ng
pagmomonitor at
pagtatasa
Programs are
complementing
each other
Pagtukoy sa
tamang programa
Kagustuhan at kakayanang magtrabaho

Willing and Capable (All workers are at least 18 years
of age at the start of work)
Napili sa antas ng kahirapan
List of CBLA participants secured, where at least 80%
of the workers are Pantawid Pamilya participants, and
at least 30% are women
Isa lamang sa pamilya ang kasali sa proyekto ng
CBLA
Workers are considered vulnerable, and do not
belong to the same family (i.e., only one family
member is a participant of the CBLA project)
mga benepersaryo.
tamang oras
sa SLP
57
SKILLS TRAINING (ST)

SLP participants may undertake the Skills Training modality through the SLP to enhance their
skills for higher productivity and / or profitability, which would lead to economic sufficiency.
The modality should be integrated with the other interventions (e.g. group formation and
enterprise establishment, job application) for the participants to be able to apply their newlyacquired skills for their microenterprise or their employment.
INPUT
Pondo
STANDARDS
INDICATORS
Skills Training fee covered per eligible SLP participant
is less than or equal to Php 20,000.00
Skills Training fees coverage include any (one or
more) of the following: tuition fee / professional fee
(honorarium); materials and supplies; starter kit; food,
board, and lodging, transportation allowance; and
assessment fee
Partner/
Service
Provider
Selection
System
Competent
Trainer
Legitimacy and Competence
Qualification
Participants are considered vulnerable, and have

expressed willingness to participate in the training
Poorest of poor (List of skills training participants
secured, where at least 80% of the trainees are
Pantawid Pamilya participants)
No. of slots provided in the skills training proposal fully
utilized (replacements for dropouts made throughout
the training, if applicable)
Training
Component
SLP Staff
Appropriate and
Suitable Training
Opens opportunities for immediate employment /

engagement in income-generating activities
Training
accomplished
Kakayanan ng
SLP staff
Kasapatan ng
SLP staff
Certificate of completion and/or competency secured

not exceeding 1 week after the training
mga benepersaryo.
tamang oras
Pakikitungo o
Pag-uugali
58
Proposal/
Grant
Request
Pagiging
katanggaptanggap ng
proposal
Monitoring
and
Husay sa
pagpapatupad ng
Evaluation
System
pagmomonitor at
pagtatasa
Convergence
Programs are
complementing
each other

sa SLP
Pagtukoy sa
tamang programa

Schedule of SLP meetings are not in conflict with
59
APPENDIX 5
Pantawid Pamilya Consolidated CSC Rerport
COMMUNITY SCORECARD
Program:
Covered area/s:
Number of stakeholders:
Date conducted:
Facilitator/type:
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

8 barangays, 4 municipalities, 4 provinces, 4 regions
76 beneficiaries and 44 service providers
23-24 November 2015; 2-3 December 2015
ANSA-EAP/civil society
Summary
60
The findings show that both the beneficiaries and the service providers are satisfied with
the effectiveness and attitude of the people handling the program (Pantawid Staff and
Parent Leaders). This is because of their availability, ability to actively listen to the concerns
of the beneficiaries, depth of knowledge about the program, ability to answer questions,
and ability to relay clear information and instructions.
Both the beneficiaries and the service providers are satisfied with grievance mechanism
because, usually, there is immediate response and grievances are intervened properly to
maintain healthy relationships.
Most of the beneficiaries are satisfied with the timely release of cash transfer payments;
but most of them are not satisfied with accessibility. Aside from the amount of effort needed
to reach the conduits (it takes four hours for some), transportation costs get deducted from
cash transfer payments, which are actually found insufficient by the beneficiaries. The
service providers have acknowledged this issue. It was recommended that off-site payouts
be established in the barangays and near GIDAs. Furthermore, it was recommended that
a budget study be conducted to determine the appropriate amount of cash transfer.
Most of the beneficiaries flagged issues about the availability and accessibility of the supply
side, particularly education and healthcare. This gives the beneficiaries a hard time
complying with the conditionalities of the program (e.g., children have to cross a river to
attend school; parents need to pay school miscellaneous fees; no doctors in the barangay
health center; inadequate medicines). The service providers have admitted this
shortcoming but also emphasized that this is not solely the responsibility of the DSWD.
Other government agencies (such as DepEd, DOH, DPWH, etc.) must be held accountable
too. The DSWD might help by implementing strategies to improve linkages between
beneficiaries and supply, and by flagging concerned government agencies to increase,
improve, and monitor the conditions of facilities and services.
Gaps in the issuance of cash transfer payments and compliance verification may be
attributed to inconsistencies in beneficiary data management, which have been flagged by
the service providers. There are several cases of beneficiaries having misspelled names
and addresses. Also, errors which had been identified have not been corrected.
The service providers flagged the inaccuracy of beneficiary selection. They believe that the
program is still not able to cater to the poorest of the poor. It was recommended that
locals (who are expected to be more aware of the local context and more familiar with the
community residents) be hired as enumerators.
Gaps in the beneficiaries familiarity about the processes of the program have been
identified. CSC interface meetings served as a venue for service providers to fill these
gaps. For example, there were beneficiaries who raised questions about the deductions of
their cash transfers (i.e., where do the deductions go?). Answering questions and doubts
like these through the interface meeting helps build and strengthen trust between
beneficiaries and service providers.
Results
Beneficiaries view
Inputs
The beneficiaries had 5 priority inputs, namely:
Pantawid Staff (6)
Conditionalities (5)
Cash Transfer Payments (5)
Parent Leader (4)
Grievance Mechanism (4)
Standards
The beneficiaries looked for the following priority standards for the priority inputs:
The Pantawid staff have good attitude (4) and are knowledgeable (4).
The conditionalities include education (5), childrens health and nutrition (5), and
family development session or FDS (5).
The cash transfer payments are on-time (4).
The parent leader is active and effective (4).
The grievance mechanism ensures immediate response (4).
Indicators
The beneficiaries cited 29 priority indicators, highlights of which are the following:
Pantawid Staff (6)
Good attitude (4)
1) Friendly (3)
2) Open-minded (1)
Knowledgeable (4)
1) Able to relay information clearly (4)
2) Able to answer questions (2)
Education (5)
1) 85% compliance rate (3)

2) School is accessible (3)
3) Sufficient teachers (2)

4) Sufficient books and materials (2)
5) Able to pay tuition fees (1)
Childrens health and nutrition (5)
1) Able to accomplish check-ups and immunization of children (2)
2) Able to deworm children (2)
3) Health center is accessible (2)
4) Health facilities and medicines are sufficient (3)
5) Barangay Health Worker (BHW) is available (1)
6) Doctors are available (1)
Family Development Session or FDS (5)
1) FDS topics are relevant to the needs of the community (2)
61
2) Able to attend monthly FDS (3)

3) Facilitators are skilled and clearly explain information (2)
4) Good facilities (1)
5) Beneficiaries are eager to attend (1)
On-time (4)
1) Every 2 months (4)
Parent Leader (4)
Active and effective (4)
1) Relays updated information (2)
2) Helps in all aspects of the job (1)
3) Visits and listens to the concerns of beneficiaries (2)
4) Attends all meetings (3)
Immediate response (4)
1) Immediate investigation (4)
2) Provides clear feedback (1)
Most were satisfied with:
Friendly (Good attitude in Pantawid Staff)
Open-minded (Good attitude in Pantawid Staff)
Able to relay information clearly (Knowledgeable in Pantawid Staff)
Able to answer questions (Knowledgeable in Pantawid Staff)
85% compliance rate (Education in Conditionalities)
School is accessible (Education in Conditionalities)
Sufficient teachers (Education in Conditionalities)
Able to accomplish check-ups and immunization of children (Childrens health and
nutrition in Conditionalities)
Able to deworm children (Childrens health and nutrition in Conditionalities)
Health center is accessible (Childrens health and nutrition in Conditionalities)
Barangay Health Worker (BHW) is available (Childrens health and nutrition in
Conditionalities)
FDS topics are relevant to the needs of the community (FDS in Conditionalities)
Able to attend monthly FDS (FDS in Conditionalities)
Facilitators are skilled and clearly explain information (FDS in Conditionalities)
Good facilities (FDS in Conditionalities)
Beneficiaries are eager to attend (FDS in Conditionalities)
Every 2 months (On-time in Cash Transfer Payments)
Relays updated information (Active and effective in Parent Leader)
Helps in all aspects of the job (Active and effective in Parent Leader)
Visits and listens to the concerns of beneficiaries (Active and effective in Parent
Leader)
Attends all meetings (Active and effective in Parent Leader)
Immediate investigation (Immediate response in Grievance Mechanism)
Provides clear feedback (Immediate response in Grievance Mechanism)
Most were not satisfied with:
Able to pay tuition fees (Education in Conditionalities)
62
Health facilities and medicines are sufficient (Childrens health and nutrition in
Conditionalities)
Doctors are available (Childrens health and nutrition in Conditionalities)
Service providers view

Inputs
The service providers had 8 priority inputs, namely:
Beneficiary Selection (8)
Pantawid Staff (4)
Compliance Verification (4)
Beneficiary Data Management (4)
Convergence (4)
Standards
The service providers looked for the following priority standards for the priority inputs:
The beneficiary selection is accurate (8).
The conditionalities include education (8), childrens health and nutrition (8), maternal
health and nutrition (8), and family development session or FDS (6).
The cash transfer payments are complete (6).
The Pantawid staff are effective (4).
The compliance verification is effective (4).
The beneficiary data management is correct and updated (4).
The grievance mechanism ensures immediate and proper intervention (4).
The convergence ensures that programs complement each other (4).
Indicators
The service providers cited 27 priority indicators, highlights of which are the following:
Beneficiary Selection (8)
Accurate (8)
1) Identified as poor in Listahanan (6)
2) Have 0-18 y/o children, pregnant woman within the family (6)
3) Localization of enumeration (2)
4) Enumerators work quality (2)
Education (8)
1) 85% compliance rate (8)
2) School is accessible (2)
3) Able to attend Youth Development Session or YDS (2)
4) Sufficient teachers (2)
5) 100% of SSA gaps are addressed (2)
Childrens health and nutrition (8)
1) Able to deworm children (8)\
2) Able to comply to immunization of children (2)
3) Able to accomplish monthly check-ups (4)
Maternal health and nutrition (8)
63
1) Able to accomplish maternal, pre-natal, and post-natal check-ups (8)

2) Home delivery is an option (2)
Family Development Session or FDS (6)
1) Able to attend monthly FDS that is consistent with the needs of the community (6)
Complete (6)
1) Facilities are accessible (6)
Pantawid Staff (4)
Effective (4)
1) Proper execution of delegated tasks (2)
2) Quarterly school and health visits (2)
Compliance Verification (4)
Effective (4)
1) Able to manage cases of non-compliant beneficiaries (2)
2) 100% submission of update request for education and health (every 2 months) (2)
Beneficiary Data Management (4)
Correct and updated (4)
1) Less grievances received (2)
2) Correct data (2)
3) Errors are corrected (2)
Immediate and proper intervention (4)
1) Concerns are addressed and intervened properly to maintain healthy
relationships (2)
2) Immediate investigation (feedback/response received/delivered within 5 days) (2)
Convergence (4)
Programs complement each other (4)
1) Pantawid enables support within KC and SLP projects (2)
2) Less assemblies attended (2)
Able to attend Youth Development Session or YDS (Education in Conditionalities)
Able to comply to immunization of children (Childrens health and nutrition in
Conditionalities)
Able to accomplish monthly check-ups (Childrens health and nutrition in
Conditionalities)
Able to accomplish maternal, pre-natal, and post-natal check-ups (Maternal health
and nutrition in Conditionaities)
Home delivery is an option (Maternal health and nutrition in Conditionaities)
Able to attend monthly FDS that is consistent with the needs of the community (FDS
in Conditionalities)
Proper execution of delegated tasks (Effective in Pantawid Staff)
100% submission of update request for education and health (every 2 months)
(Effective in Compliance Verification)
Concerns are addressed and intervened properly to maintain healthy relationships
(Immediate and proper intervention in Grievance Mechanism)
64
Immediate investigation (Immediate and proper intervention in Grievance

Mechanism)
Pantawid enables support within KC and SLP projects (Programs complement each
other in Convergence)
Less assemblies attended (Programs complement each other in Convergence)

Identified as poor in Listahanan (Accurate in Beneficiary Selection)
Have 0-18 y/o children, pregnant woman within the family (Accurate in Beneficiary
Selection)
Localization of enumeration (Accurate in Beneficiary Selection)
Enumerators work quality (Accurate in Beneficiary Selection)
100% of SSA gaps are addressed (Education in Conditionalities)
Facilities are accessible (Complete in Cash Transfer Payments)
Quarterly school and health visits (Effective in Pantawid Staff)
Able to manage cases of non-compliant beneficiaries (Effective in Compliance
Verification)
Less grievances received (Correct and updated in Beneficiary Data Management)
Correct data (Correct and updated in Beneficiary Data Management)
Errors are corrected (Correct and updated in Beneficiary Data Management)
Interface
Inputs
Both beneficiaries and service providers prioritized the following inputs:
Conditionalities
Pantawid Staff
Cash Transfer Payments
Grievance Mechanism
Only the beneficiaries prioritized:
Parent Leader
Only the service providers prioritized:
Beneficiary Selection
Compliance Verification
Beneficiary Data Management
Convergence
Standards
Both beneficiaries and service providers looked for standards of:
Education in Conditionalities
Childrens health and nutrition in Conditionalities
Family Development Session or FDS in Conditionalities
Effective in Pantawid Staff
Immediate and proper intervention in Grievance Mechanism
65
Only the beneficiaries looked for standards of:

On-time in Cash Transfer Payments
Only the service providers looked for standards of:
Maternal health and nutrition in Conditionalities
Complete in Cash Transfer Payments
Indicators
Both beneficiaries and service providers looked for indicators of:
Able to accomplish check-ups and immunization of children (Childrens health and
nutrition in Conditionalities)
Able to attend monthly FDS that is consistent with the needs of the community (FDS
in Conditionalities)
Immediate investigation (Immediate and proper intervention in Grievance
Mechanism)
The beneficiaries cited 9 more indicators than the service providers.
Unique indicators from the beneficiaries include:
Sufficient books and materials (Education in Conditionalities)
Able to pay tuition fees (Education in Conditionalities)
Health center is accessible (Childrens health and nutrition in Conditionalities)
Health facilities and medicines are sufficient (Childrens health and nutrition in
Conditionalities)
Barangay Health Worker (BHW) is available (Childrens health and nutrition in
Conditionalities)
Doctors are available (Childrens health and nutrition in Conditionalities)
Facilitators are skilled and clearly explain information (FDS in Conditionalities)
Good facilities (FDS in Conditionalities)
Beneficiaries are eager to attend (FDS in Conditionalities)
Friendly (Effective in Pantawid Staff)
Open-minded (Effective in Pantawid Staff)
Able to relay information clearly (Effective in Pantawid Staff)
Able to answer questions (Effective in Pantawid Staff)
Provides clear feedback (Immediate and proper intervention in Grievance
Mechanism)
Unique indicators from the service providers include:
Able to attend Youth Development Session or YDS (Education in Conditionalities)
100% of SSA gaps are addressed (Education in Conditionalities)
Proper execution of delegated tasks (Effective in Pantawid Staff)
Quarterly school and health visits (Effective in Pantawid Staff)
Concerns are addressed and intervened properly to maintain healthy relationships
(Immediate and proper intervention in Grievance Mechanism)
66
Both beneficiaries and service providers had the same rating in 6 indicators:
85% compliance rate: satisfied
Sufficient teachers: satisfied
Able to deworm children: satisfied
Able to accomplish check-ups and immunization of children: satisfied
Able to attend monthly FDS that is consistent with the needs of the community:
satisfied
Immediate investigation (feedback/response received/delivered within 5 days):
satisfied
They differed in:
School is accessible: the beneficiaries rated it with satisfied while the service
providers rated it with not satisfied
Unique indicators from the beneficiaries were rated:
Able to pay tuition fees: not satisfied
Health center is accessible: satisfied
Health facilities and medicines are sufficient: not satisfied
Barangay Health Worker (BHW) is available: satisfied
Doctors are available: not satisfied
Facilitators are skilled and clearly explain information: satisfied
Good facilities: satisfied
Beneficiaries are eager to attend: satisfied
Friendly: satisfied
Open-minded: satisfied
Able to relay information clearly: satisfied
Able to answer questions: satisfied
Provides clear feedback: satisfied
Unique indicators from the service providers were rated:
Able to attend Youth Development Session or YDS: satisfied
100% of SSA gaps are addressed: not satisfied
Proper execution of delegated tasks: satisfied
Quarterly school and health visits: not satisfied
Concerns are addressed and intervened properly to maintain healthy relationships:
satisfied
Recommendations and plans of action
The recommendations include the following:
On accessibility of cash transfer payments (5 barangays: Q1, CS2, L1, L2, SDN1)
Keep a grievance logbook
Concerns have to be properly consulted with the ML
Establish off-site payouts in the barangay and near GIDAs
On availability of medicines and doctors (4 barangays: Q2, L1, SDN1, SDN2)
67
Approach the BHWs or doctors and ask them to monitor the medicines given out to
some beneficiaries as some people would hoard some medicines which will result in
shortage of supply
Let the nutritionist check on the child to determine if the child needs medicine
There should be a clear process for check-ups
Additional budget for medicines
On accuracy of beneficiary selection (3 barangays: Q2, L1, SDN1)

Get an interview with the Listahanan or make an appeal
Update records, conduct another survey
Localization of enumerator
On sufficiency of cash transfer payments (2 barangays: L2, SDN2)
Conduct a budget study to know the amount needed for transportation, school
supplies, food, and medicines in a year
Write to DSWD to request additional amount
On accessibility and sufficiency of educational facilities and materials (2 barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
There should be an accessible school for children from Lahi and Camamonar
Let the children stay with relatives living in Sico-Sico
Address the issue during the PTA meeting
On compliance to conditionalities (2 barangays: L2, SDN1)
Conduct home visits and talk with non-compliants
Enhance monitoring
Repair damaged facilities
Payment of school miscellaneous fees should be voluntary
On inconsistency of data (2 barangays: Q2, SDN1)
Small errors (such as misspelled names and address) can be avoided if the
beneficiaries would also double check what is written
Update and correct the data
On peacefulness in community assemblies (1 barangay: Q2)
Mothers should either leave their child at home with the father or a responsible
guardian. If there is nobody available to look after their child, they should make sure
that they can control the child in order to avoid distractions during the meeting.
On grievance mechanism (1 barangay: L1)
Explain to beneficiaries the process flow for addressing grievances from beneficiaries
> municipal link > provincial action team > regional action team > national action
team and back
68
69
Conditionalities
(5 barangays: Q2,
CS1, L2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Beneficiary
Selection (3
barangays: CS2,
L1, L2)
Inputs
Indicators
Accurate (3
Identified as poor in
barangays: CS2, L1, Listahanan (2
L2)
barangays: CS2, L2)
Have 0-18 y/o children
(2 barangays: L1, L2)
Education
85% compliance rate
(5 barangays: Q2,
(3 barangays: CS1, L2,
CS1, L2, SDN1,
SDN2)
SDN2)
School is accessible
(3 barangays: Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Sufficient teachers (2
barangays: Q2, SDN1)
Sufficient books and
materials (2 barangays:
Q2, SDN2)
Able to pay tuition fees
(1 barangay: SDN1)
Childrens health
Able to accomplish
and nutrition
check-ups and
(5 barangays: Q2,
immunization of
CS1, L2, SDN1,
children
SDN2)
(2 barangays: Q2,
CS1)
Able to deworm
children
(2 barangays: Q2, L2)
Health center is
accessible
(2 barangays: Q2,
SDN2)
Standards
Q2
SDN1
Q2
SDN2
L2
Q2
Q2
CS1
Q2
SDN2
L1
L2
SDN2
SDN2
Scores
CS2
L2
Q2
SDN1
CS1
L2
PANTAWID PAMILYA BENEFICIARIES
SDN2: Materials in
school are insufficient
SDN2: School is not that

far from the vicinity
Reasons
SDN2: Health center is

not that far within the
vicinity
SDN1 SDN1: Beneficiaries

have to pay misc. fees
70

Family Development
Session (FDS) (5
barangays: Q2,
CS1, L2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Maternal health and

nutrition (3
barangays: Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Barangay Health
Worker (BHW) is
available (1 barangay:
Q2)
Doctors are available
(1 barangay: Q2)
Able to accomplish
maternal, pre-natal,
and post-natal checkups (1 barangay: Q2)
Doctors are available
(2 barangays: Q2,
SDN1)
Sufficient midwives (1
barangay: SDN1)
Health center is
accessible (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Sufficient health
facilities and medicines
(1 barangay: SDN2)
FDS topics are relevant
to the needs of the
community (2
Able to attend monthly
FDS (3 barangays: Q2,
CS1, L2)
Facilitators are skilled
and clearly explain
Health facilities and

medicines are sufficient
(3 barangays: Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Q2
SDN2
L2
Q2
SDN1
SDN1
SDN1
Q2
Q2
CS1
SDN2
Q2
SDN2
Q2
SDN1
Q2
Q2
SDN1
SDN2
SDN2: Health facilities

and medicines are
insufficient
SDN2: Health center is

not that far within the
vicinity
SDN1: Beneficiaries feel

that the doctor is usually
unavailable
Q2: Medicine is
limited/insufficient
SDN1, SDN2: Health
facilities and medicines
are insufficient
71
Parent Leader
(4 barangays: Q1,
Q2, CS2, SDN1)
Pantawid Staff
(6 barangays: Q1,
Q2, CS1, CS2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Good attitude
(3 barangays: Q1,
Q2, SDN1)
Active and effective
(4 barangays: Q1,
Q2, CS2, SDN1)
Active and effective

(3 barangays: Q2,
CS1, SDN1)
Knowledgeable
(4 barangays: Q2,
CS2, SDN1, SDN2)
Good attitude
(4 barangays: Q1,
Q2, SDN1, SDN2)
Able to answer
questions (2
Quickly disseminates
information (1
barangay: Q2)
Always present in
meetings (2 barangays:
Q2, CS1)
Available when needed
(3 barangays: Q2,
CS1, SDN1)
Approachable
(3 barangays: Q1, Q2,
SDN1)
Relays updated
information (2
information (2
Good facilities (1
barangay: SDN1)
Beneficiaries are eager
to attend (1 barangay:
SDN1)
Friendly
(3 barangays: Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Open-minded (1
barangay: Q1)
Able to relay
information clearly (4
barangays: Q2, CS2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Q2
CS1
SDN1
Q1
Q2
SDN1
Q1
SDN1
Q2
CS1
Q2
Q2
SDN1
CS2
SDN1
Q1
Q2
SDN1
SDN1
SDN1
Q2
SDN2
SDN2
CS1: Pantawid staff

know the concerns of the
beneficiaries
SDN1: Parent leader
interacts in a good
manner
SDN2: Can mostly give

beneficiaries clear
understanding on the
information/instructions
72
Cash Transfer
Payments
(5 barangays: Q1,
CS2, L1, L2, SDN2)
Every 2 months
(4 barangays: Q1,
CS2, L2, SDN2)
Receive the complete
amount (3 barangays:
Q1, CS2, SDN2)
Enough for
beneficiaries needs (2
barangays: L2, SDN2)
Continuous cash
transfers to support
childrens school
On-time
(4 barangays: Q1,
CS2, L2, SDN2)
Complete (3
barangays: Q1,
CS2, SDN2)
Sufficient (2
barangays: L2,
SDN2)
Sustainable (1
barangay: SDN2)
Easy to process (2
barangays: L1,
SDN2)
Helps in all aspects of

the job (1 barangay:
Q2)
Visits and listens to the
concerns of
beneficiaries (2
barangays: Q2, CS2)
Attends all meetings (3
barangays: Q2, CS2,
SDN1)
Length of queue (1
barangay: L1)
Distance from bank (2
CS2
CS2
L2
Q2
CS2
SDN1
Q2
CS2
Q2
SDN2
SDN2
SDN2
L2
SDN2
SDN2 L1
L1
Q1
Q1
L1: Beneficiaries get

hungry while waiting
L1: Beneficiaries need to
shell out money for
transportation costs
SDN2: Cash transfers
can be withdrawn near
the vicinity
L2: On-time updates
about cash release
SDN2: Cash mostly
arrives on time
SDN2: Cash transfers
are usually received in
the agreed amount
L2: Some of the money
is used for transportation
costs
L2, SDN2: Beneficiaries
feel that the money they
receive is insufficient for
their needs
73
Beneficiary Data
Management (2
barangays: Q2,
CS1)
Compliance
Verification (2
barangays: Q2, L2)
Community
Assemblies (2
barangays: Q2,
CS2)
Accessible (1
barangay: Q2)
Records are
available and
coordinated (1
barangay: Q2)
Ensures equality (1
barangay: L2)
Records are
accurate (1
barangay: Q2)
Have clear agenda

(1 barangay: Q2)
Venue is conducive
to productivity (1
barangay: Q2)
Schedule is
appropriate (1
barangay: CS2)
Plan is being explained
(1 barangay: Q2)
Clean and spacious (1
barangay: Q2)
Peaceful and quiet (1
barangay: Q2)
Good facilities (chairs,
restrooms, water,
sound system, and
projector) (1 barangay:
Q2)
Correct information (1
barangay: Q2)
Correct spelling (1
barangay: Q2)
No favoritism from the
service providers (1
barangay: L2)
Teacher can check
records (1 barangay:
Q2)
Barangay Health
Worker (BHW) can
check records (1
barangay: Q2)
Forms sent to Parent
Leader (1 barangay:
Q2)
attendance (1
barangay: SDN2)
Beneficiaries are
informed ahead of time
(1 barangay: CS2)
Q2
L2
Q2
Q2
Q2
Q2
Q2
Q2
Q2
Q2
CS2
CS2: Scheduled
meetings are usually
cancelled
74
Beneficiary
Selection
(8 barangays: Q1,
Q2, CS1, CS2, L1,
L2, SDN1, SDN2)
Inputs
CCT Bill (1
barangay: L1)
Grievance
Mechanism
(4 barangays: Q2,
L1, L2, SDN2)
Q2
Provides clear
feedback (1 barangay:
Q2)
All complaints should
be attended to (1
barangay: L2)
Pantawid should be
made into a law (1
barangay: L1)
L2
Q2
L2
Immediate
investigation
(4 barangays: Q2, L1,
L2, SDN2)
Updated records (2
barangays: Q2, CS1)
L1
SDN2 L1
Q2
CS1
Identified as poor in
Listahanan
CS1, CS2, L1, L2)
Indicators
Scores
Q1
Q2
L1
L2
PANTAWID PAMILYA SERVICE PROVIDERS
Accurate
(8 barangays: Q1,
Q2, CS1, CS2, L1,
L2, SDN1, SDN2)
Standards
Approval (1
barangay: L1)
Unbiased (1
barangay: L2)
Efficient (2
barangays: Q2,
CS1)
Immediate response
(4 barangays: Q2,
L1, L2, SDN2)
CS1
CS2
Q1, Q2: Not all

beneficiaries are poor.
Would prefer to use
indigent
CS1, CS2: Grievances
were received from both
Pantawid and nonPantawid members
L1, L2: There are still
poor families who are not
covered by the program
even as they may qualify
Reasons
L2: All grievances are

responded to
L1: Feedback takes a

long time
SDN2: Most of the time
there is a quick
resolution/action for
grievances
75
Conditionalities
(8 barangays: Q1,
Q2, CS1, CS2, L1,
L2, SDN1, SDN2)
Education
(8 barangays: Q1,
Q2, CS1, CS2, L1,
L2, SDN1, SDN2)
Able to attend Youth

Q1
Development Session
Q2
(YDS) (2 barangays: Q1,
Q2)
School is accessible (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
85% compliance rate (8

barangays: Q1, Q2,
CS1, CS2, L1, L2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Localization of
enumeration (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Enumerators work
quality (2 barangays:
SDN1, SDN2)
Have 0-18 y/o children,

pregnant woman within
the family (6 barangays:
Q1, Q2, CS1, CS2, L1,
L2)
Q1
Q2
CS1
CS2
L1
L2
SDN1
SDN2
Q1
Q2
SDN1
SDN2
L1
L2
SDN1, SDN2: Some

barangays have to cross
a river or go to a nearby
barangays school
SDN1 SDN1, SDN2:

SDN2 Enumerators have a
quota per day. They try to
meet the quota by
sacrificing the quality of
work.
CS1, CS2: Grievances

were received from both
Pantawid and nonPantawid members
L1, L2: There are still
poor families who are not
covered by the program
even as they may qualify
SDN1 SDN1, SDN2: There was
SDN2 never a localization of
enumeration
CS1
CS2
76

Maternal health and
nutrition
(8 barangays: Q1,
Q2, CS1, CS2, L1,
L2, SDN1, SDN2)
Childrens health
and nutrition
(8 barangays: Q1,
Q2, CS1, CS2, L1,
L2, SDN1, SDN2)
Able to comply to
immunization of children
(2 barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Able to accomplish
monthly check-ups (4
barangays: Q1, Q2,
CS1, CS2)
Able to accomplish
maternal, pre-natal, and
post-natal check-ups
CS1, CS2, L1, L2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Home delivery is an
option (2 barangays:
SDN1, SDN2)
Able to deworm children

CS1, CS2, L1, L2,
SDN1, SDN2)
100% of SSA gaps are

addressed (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Sufficient teachers (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Q1
Q2
L1
L2
Q1
L1
Q2
L2
CS1
CS2
SDN1
SDN2
SDN1
SDN2
CS1
CS2
Q1
L1
Q2
L2
CS1
CS2
SDN1
SDN2
SDN1
SDN2
L1
L2
L1, L2: Accessibility is an

issue
SDN1, SDN2: Some
people are lazy to go to
health centers because it
is far from their vicinity
SDN1, SDN2: Home
deliveries are preferred
by beneficiaries because
some have to cross a
river to go to the nearby
health clinic.
L1, L2: 1 teacher is to 25

students should be the
model class size
L1, L2: Schools,
classrooms, and health
centers damaged by
Typhoon Yolanda; these
facilities and services are
quite inaccessible to
GIDA communities.
L1, L2: Doubts due to
news reports
SDN1, SDN2: Some
parents do not allow their
children to undergo
deworming
SDN1, SDN2: Parents do
not believe in vaccines
77
Community
Assemblies (2
barangays: CS1,
CS2)
Parent Leader (2
barangays: CS1,
CS2)
Cash Transfer
Payments
(6 barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Pantawid Staff
(4 barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2)
Monthly and
addresses
beneficiaries
concerns (2
Grant utilization is
monitored (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Effective (Properlyequipped with the

right set of
knowledge, skills,
and attitude) (4
barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2)
Effective (2
barangays: CS1,
CS2)
Complete
(6 barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Family Development
Session (FDS) (6
barangays: Q1, Q2,
CS1, CS2, L1, L2)
Beneficiaries learn
during FDS (2
barangays: CS1, CS2)
MCAC monitors grant

utilization (2 barangays:
SDN1, SDN2)
Executes tasks properly

(2 barangays: CS1,
CS2)
Facilities are accessible
(6 barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Able to attend monthly

FDS that is consistent
with the needs of the
community (6
barangays: Q1, Q2,
CS1, CS2, L1, L2)
Proper execution of
delegated tasks (2
Quarterly school and
health visits (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Q1
Q2
CS1
CS2
CS1
CS2
CS1
CS2
CS1
CS2
CS1
CS2
L1
L2
SDN1
SDN2
L1
L2
L1
L2
L1, L2: It takes 4 hours to

reach the nearest
conduits
SDN1, SDN2: Some of
the cash grant received is
used for transportation
costs to get the cash
transfer
SDN1 SDN1, SDN2: There is no
SDN2 LGU follow-up on the
grant utilization and the
current MOA does not
specify the MCACs
(Municipal Convergence
Advisory Committee) role
in the program
CS1, CS2: Properly
scheduled and conducted
on time
CS1, CS2: PLs are

trained and dedicated
L1, L2: Conflict of

schedule
CS1, CS2: Staff were

properly trained
L1, L2: None attendance

of husband (if any)
78

Immediate and
proper intervention
(4 barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2)
Programs
complement each
other (4 barangays:
Q1, Q2, CS1, CS2)
Convergence (4
barangays: Q1, Q2,
CS1, CS2)
Correct and updated

(4 barangays: CS1,
CS2, SDN1, SDN2)
Grievance
Mechanism (4
barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2)
Beneficiary Data
Management (4
barangays: CS1,
CS2, SDN1, SDN2)
Compliance
Verification (4
barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2)
barangays: CS1,
CS2)
Effective (4
barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2)
Errors are corrected (2

barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Concerns are addressed
and intervened properly
to maintain healthy
relationships (2
Immediate investigation
(feedback/response
received/delivered within
5 days) (2 barangays:
L1, L2)
Pantawid enables
support within KC and
SLP projects (2
barangays: Q1, Q2)
Able to manage cases of

non-compliant
beneficiaries (2
100% submission of
update request for
education and health
(every 2 months) (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Less grievances
received (2 barangays:
CS1, CS2)
Correct data (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Q1
Q2
L1, L2: 90% achieved
L1
L2
CS1, CS2: Noncompliance of concerned

beneficiaries
SDN1, SDN2: Some
beneficiaries have the
wrong information under
the database
SDN1, SDN2: Errors are
not corrected
CS1, CS2: Active GR
focal
SDN1
SDN2
SDN1
SDN2
CS1
CS2
CS1, CS2: Mercy

compliance of other
stakeholders
CS1
CS2
L1
L2
CS1
CS2
79
Convergence with
other government
agencies (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Effective (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Less assemblies
attended (2 barangays:
CS1, CS2)
Holds regular MIAC
meeting (every 2
months) (2 barangays:
L1, L2)
100% attendance rate
for MIAC members (2
barangays: L1, L2)
L1
L2
L1
L2
CS1
CS2
CS1, CS2: With

coordination between
MAT
L1, L2: Regular conduct
of meetings with
resolutions and action
plans
L1, L2: Some members
are not available
APPENDIX 6
Kalahi-CIDSS-NCDDP Consolidated CSC Rerport
COMMUNITY SCORECARD
Program:
Covered area/s:
Date conducted:
Facilitator/type:
Kalahi-CIDSS-NCDDP
Summary
80
Both the beneficiaries and the service providers are concerned about the timely
release of grant because beneficiaries take a long and hard time completing the
requirements. The beneficiaries are also concerned about the sufficiency of the
grant because sometimes, the grant is not enough to complete the project. Also, the
beneficiaries raised that grants for project maintenance should also be provided to
ensure continuous operations.
The KC Staff were found effective in engaging the beneficiaries, facilitating citizenLGU partnership, and resolving issues. This is because they are always available
when needed, knowledgeable about the program, and are actively listening to the
beneficiaries concerns. The beneficiaries and the service providers, however,
flagged a concern about the continuity or permanence of the assigned staff. The KC
staff may become more effective if they are able to immerse in the assigned
community and know the community on a deeper level.
Both
the
beneficiaries
and
the
service
providers
stressed
the
participative/empowering factor of community assemblies; however, they gave
different ratings. The beneficiaries are generally satisfied with it because they
perceive community assemblies as effective in helping empower them through
ensuring representation of vulnerable groups, awareness-raising, partnershipbuilding, and participation in decision-making. The service providers, however, are
not satisfied because of ineffective communication (especially in very remote
places), lack of follow-ups, and the beneficiaries tendency to prioritize livelihood
activities. It was recommended that community assemblies be held near the
barangay and with consideration for the schedule of livelihood activities (e.g.,
planting season, harvesting season, etc.) to accommodate the beneficiaries.
Under capacity development for CVs, both the beneficiaries and the service
providers are satisfied with skills trainings because these effectively engage the
beneficiaries and enhance their capacities. Both the beneficiaries and the service
providers, however, flagged lack of commitment among CVs, which was identified
as one of the reasons the CVs accomplishment of outputs gets delayed. The lack
of commitment among CVs is attributed to three factors. First, CVs get overwhelmed
by tasks because, from the start, information about roles and responsibilities is
incomplete and not clear to them. Second is the unavailability of
incentives/allowances for CVs. The service providers stressed that the provision of
incentives/allowances is against the principles of volunteerism and the objective of
KC-NCDDP to promote empowerment and local counterpart. The request of the
beneficiaries to have incentives/allowances (to cover transportation expenses and
snacks), however, is valid. Time spent in volunteering is time taken away from
livelihood activities. This is connected to improper scheduling and time

management. When livelihood activities and family responsibilities coincide with
program activities, the CVs either prioritize livelihood/family or sacrifice
livelihood/family to be able to attend to program activities.
Results
Beneficiaries view
Inputs
Grant (7)
KC-NCDDP staff (6)
Community Assemblies (6)
Capacity Development for Community Volunteers or CVs (5)
Standards
The grants are on-time (5) and sufficient (5).
The KC-NCDDP staff are active (5).
The community assemblies are participative/empowering (5).
The capacity development for community volunteers (CVs) includes assistance
for CVs (4).
Indicators
Grant (7)
On-time (5)
1) Complete and on-time accomplishment of requirements (3)
2) On-time to address the needs of the community (3)
Sufficient (5)
1) Enough budget to finish the subproject (4)
2) Plans that have been agreed upon must be followed (1)
3) Allocation of funds for project maintenance (1)
KC-NCDDP staff (6)
Active (5)
1) Closely monitoring the project and easy to contact (4)
2) On-time in meetings and submission of deliverables (2)
Participative/Empowering (5)
1) 80-100% attendance rate (3)
2) Ensures representation of vulnerable groups (2)
3) Information is explained completely (3)
4) Participation in decision-making (1)
5) Role partnership among community members (1)
Includes assistance for CVs (4)
1) Allowance/Incentives (3)
2) Skills Training (3)
81

On-time to address the needs of the community (On-time in Grant)
Closely monitoring the project and easy to contact (Active in KC-NCDDP Staff)
80-100% attendance rate (Participative/Empowering in Community
Assemblies)
Ensures representation of vulnerable groups (Participative/Empowering in
Community Assemblies)
Information is explained completely (Participative/Empowering in Community
Assemblies)
Participation in decision-making (Participative/Empowering in Community
Assemblies)
Role partnership among community members (Participative/Empowering in
Skills Training (Assistance for CVs in Capacity Development for CVs)
Complete and on-time accomplishment of requirements (On-time in Grant)
Enough budget to finish the subproject (Sufficient in Grant)
Plans that have been agreed upon must be followed (Sufficient in Grant)
Allocation of funds for project maintenance (Sufficient in Grant)
Allowance/Incentives (Assistance for CVs in Capacity Development for CVs)
Inputs
Grant (8)
System of Project Selection (6)
KC-NCDDP Staff (6)
Monitoring (4)
Standards
The grants are on-time (8).
The capacity development for community volunteers (CVs) includes assistance
for CVs (4).
The system of project selection is responsive to community problems and
needs (6).
The KC-NCDDP staff are trained (4).
The community assemblies are participative/empowering (6) and accessible
(4).
The monitoring is regular (4).
Indicators
Grant (8)
82
On-time (8)
1) Complete and on-time accomplishment of requirements (2)
2) Able to follow the standard protocols for grant downloads (8)
Includes assistance for CVs (4)
1) Skills Training (4)
System of Project Selection (6)
Responsive to community problems and needs (6)
1) Prioritizing identified needs (6)
2) Ensures protection against potential adverse impact (2)
KC-NCDDP Staff (6)
Trained (4)
1) With community organizing (CO) experience (2)
2) Submission of monthly reports (2)
3) Appropriate timeframe for trainings (2)
Participative/Empowering (6)
1) 80-100% attendance rate (4)
2) Representation of PWDs, Senior Citizens, Women, IPs (2)
Accessible (4)
1) Distance of the venue (2)
2) Starts on-time (2)
3) Announcements through communication letters (2)
Monitoring (4)
Regular (4)
1) Weekly monitoring (2)
2) Progress of the subproject (2)
3) Finance accomplishment (2)

Prioritizing identified needs (Responsive to community problems and needs in
System of Project Selection)
Ensures protection against potential adverse impact (Responsive to
community problems and needs in System of Project Selection)
Submission of monthly reports (Trained in KC-NCDDP Staff)
Representation of PWDs, Senior Citizens, Women, IPs
(Participative/Empowering in Community Assemblies)
Weekly monitoring (Regular in Monitoring)
Able to follow the standard protocols for grant downloads (On-time in Grant)
With community organizing (CO) experience (Trained in KC-NCDDP Staff)
Appropriate timeframe for trainings (Trained in KC-NCDDP Staff)
80-100% attendance rate (Participative/Empowering of marginalized groups in
Distance of the venue (Accessible in Community Assemblies)
Starts on-time (Accessible in Community Assemblies)
83
Announcements through communication letters (Accessible in Community

Assemblies)
Finance accomplishment (Regular in Monitoring)
Interface
Inputs
Grant
Capacity Development for Community Volunteers or CVs
KC-NCDDP Staff
Community Assemblies
System of Project Selection
Monitoring
Standards
On-time in Grant
Includes assistance for CVs in Capacity Development for CVs
Participative/Empowering in Community Assemblies
Only the beneficiaries looked for standards of:
Sufficient in Grant
Active in KC-NCDDP Staff
Trained in KC-NCDDP Staff
Accessible in Community Assemblies
Indicators
Skills Training (Includes assistance for CVs in Capacity Development for CVs)
80-100% attendance rate (Participative/Empowering in Community
Assemblies)
Ensures representation of vulnerable groups (Participative/Empowering in
On-time to address the needs of the community (On-time in Grant)
Allowance/Incentives (Includes assistance for CVs in Capacity Development
for CVs)
Information is explained completely (Participative/Empowering in Community
Assemblies)
84
Participation in decision-making (Participative/Empowering in Community

Assemblies)
Role partnership among community members (Participative/Empowering in

Able to follow the standard protocols for grant downloads (On-time in Grant)
Both beneficiaries and service providers had the same rating in 2 indicators:
Skills Training: satisfied
Ensures representation of vulnerable groups: satisfied
They differed in:
Complete and on-time accomplishment of requirements: the beneficiaries rated
it with not satisfied while the service providers rated it with satisfied
80-100% attendance rate: the beneficiaries rated it with satisfied while the
service providers rated it with not satisfied
On-time to address the needs of the community: satisfied
Allowance/Incentives: not satisfied
Information is explained completely: satisfied
Participation in decision-making: satisfied
Role partnership among community members: satisfied
Able to follow the standard protocols for grant downloads: not satisfied
On incentives for CVs (4 barangays: L1, Q1, Q2, SDN2)
LGU to provide counterpart: dialogue about the need for incentives and
discuss during barangay session
Arrange scheduling of work so that CVs will not have to sacrifice their
livelihood
Address to the higher offices
Standard allowance for CVs and amount will depend on travel distance
On timely release of grant (3 barangays: Q1, Q2, SDN1)
Proper and coordinated accomplishment of documents
Report using grievance box, text, or email
On 80-100% participation rate (3 barangays: CS1, CS2, SDN1)
Proper communication three days before
Involve BDCs in disseminating information
Communication using cellular phones is discouraged due to signal problems
85
On timely accomplishment of outputs (3 barangays: CS1, L1, L2)

Close monitoring
Be strict in imposing deadlines
Follow-ups through text or call
Be strict in choosing suppliers and guarantee their commitment by writing a
contract
Blacklist suppliers who fail to deliver
On continuity of work in cases of KC staff or CV replacement (2 barangays: CS1,
SDN1)
Proper turnover of documents
No reshuffling of staff as much as possible
On ensured capacity and willingness of the person for the role or responsibility as CV
(2 barangays: Q2, L1)
Give clear and specific information about the role or responsibility
Exercise time management and proper scheduling
On coordination of KC staff, CVs, and BLGU (2 barangays: CS2, SDN2)
Set regular BSPMC and BDC meetings
Open all issues during meetings
On meetings are held as scheduled and start on time (2 barangays: L1, Q1)
Post schedule of activities
Megaphone announcement
Coordination of program heads
On allocation of funds for project maintenance (2 barangays: L2, SDN2)
Look for other ways to raise funds (e.g., solicitation, fundraising activities)
Draft resolution requesting for assistance for operational maintenance
Partnership with other agencies
86
87
Prioritize the needs

of the community
(2 barangays: L1,
SDN2)
On-time
(5 barangays:
CS2, L1, Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
System of
Project
Selection (2
barangays:
L1, SDN2)
Grant
(7
barangays:
CS1, CS2,
L1, L2, Q2,
SDN1,
SDN2)
Sufficient
(5 barangays:
CS1, CS2, L2, Q2
SDN2)
Standards
Inputs
Enough budget to finish the

subproject
(4 barangays: CS2, L2, Q2,
SDN2)
Plans that have been agreed
upon must be followed (1
barangay: CS1)
Allocation of funds for project
maintenance (1 barangay:
SDN2)
On-time to address the needs of

the community (3 barangays:
CS2, L1, SDN2)
100% attendance (1 barangay:

L1)
Community-based system of
prioritization (2 barangays: L1,
SDN2)
Well-represented by all sectors
(1 barangay: SDN2)
Complete and on-time
accomplishment of
requirements
(3 barangays: L1, Q2, SDN1)
Indicators
CS2
CS2
L1
L1
SDN2
L1
Scores
Reasons
SDN2: The community

has a system for
prioritization
SDN2
SDN2: Some people are
busy to attend
L1
Q2
SDN1 SDN1: Beneficiaries are
having a hard time with
completing requirements
and they feel that
requesting grants is a
tedious process
SDN2
L1: Release 1 month
after the request
SDN2: Grants mostly
arrive on time
L2
Q2
SDN2: Grants are not
SDN2
enough for some projects
L2: Supplier of materials
failed to deliver
CS1
CS1: Plans had not been
carried out based on
program of work (POW)
SDN2
SDN2: Grants should still
be given to maintain
some projects like
schools
KC-NCDDP BENEFICIARIES
88
KC-NCDDP
Staff
(6
barangays:
CS1, CS2,
L1, L2, Q2,
SDN1)
Accountable (1
barangay: SDN1)
Good attitude
(3 barangays:
CS2, L1, L2)
Knowledgeable
(3 barangays: L2,
Q2, SDN1)
Active
(5 barangays:
CS1, CS2, L1, L2,
Q2)
Kind and humble (1 barangay:

CS2)
Transparent in implementing the
program (1 barangay: SDN1)
Q2
L1
L2
SDN1
CS2
L2
Q2
SDN1
L1
On-time in meetings and

submission of deliverables (2
barangays: CS1, L1)
Can explain the program with
depth and able to answer
questions
Approachable and open to
questions
CS2
L2
Closely monitoring the project

and easy to contact
(4 barangays: CS1, CS2, L2,
Q2)
CS1
CS1
SDN1: There is
transparency in program
implementations most of
the time
CS2: Continuously
monitor the project
CS1: CEF is always
being replaced
L2: Always available
through text, call,
personal meet-up
CS1: Always late
L1: Actively participate in
meetings and able to
deliver the required
outputs
L2, SDN1: KC staff are
knowledgeable when it
comes to trainings and
sessions
L1, L2: Very open to
questions and grievances
L1, L2: People feel
comfortable asking
questions and
communicating
grievances
L2: Available 24 hours
89
Community
Assemblies
(6
barangays:
CS2, L1, L2,
Q1, Q2,
SDN1)
Adhere to
environmental and
social safeguards
(1 barangay: Q2)
Appropriate
schedule and
starts on time (2
barangays: CS2,
Q1)
Accessible (1
barangay: Q1)
Participative/
Empowering
(5 barangays: L1,
L2, Q1, Q2, SDN1)
Continuing (1
barangay: Q2)
Distance of the meeting venue

(1 barangay: Q1)
Role partnership among

community members (1
barangay: SDN1)
Ensures the protection of
vulnerable groups against
potential adverse impact (1
barangay: Q2)
Conducted at the scheduled
time (2 barangays: CS2,Q1)
Ensures representation of
vulnerable groups (2
barangays: Q1, Q2)
Information is explained
completely (3 barangays: L1,
L2, Q1)
Participation in decision-making
(1 barangay: SDN1)
No changes in assigned staff

until completion of the
subproject (1 barangay: Q2)
80-100% attendance rate
(3 barangays: L1, L2, SDN1)
Q2
SDN1
SDN1
L1
L2
Q1
Q2
L1
L2
Q1
CS2
Q1
SDN1
Q1
Q2
SDN1: Community
members are very
participative in decisionmaking
SDN1: Members of the
community have
partnership roles
L1, L2: People are easy

to gather through text or
call
L2: Even non-CVs
participate
90
Proper selection of
CVs
(1 barangay: Q2)
Capacity
Assistance for CVs
Development (4 barangays: L1,
for
Q2, SDN1, SDN2)
Community
Volunteers or
CVs
(5
barangays:
CS1, L2, Q2,
SDN1, SDN2
Complete information about

roles/responsibilities is relayed
(1 barangay: Q2)
Ensures the capacity of the
person for the role/responsibility
(1 barangay: Q2)
Skills Training
(3 barangays: Q2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Use of simple language and

easy to understand (1 barangay:
Q1)
Allowance/Incentives
SDN2 Q2
SDN1
Q1
Q2
Q2
L1
Q2
SDN2
SDN2: Some CVs do not

receive the same
allowance as others;
some CVs have to chip in
for transportation costs
when allowances get
delayed
Q2, L1: Some CVs do
not have allowances at
all
SDN2: Trainings are very
detailed, not hastened,
and translated to local
dialect
SDN1: Most CVs are
able to attend trainings
and seminars, develops
clear understanding of
budgeting and monitoring
procedures, and
develops organized
keeping of records
91
Grievance
Redress
System (1
barangay:
Q1)
Monitoring (2
barangays:
CS2, L2)
Handles cases
properly (1
barangay: Q1)
Regular and
updated (2
barangays: CS2,
L2)
Accessible (1
barangay: Q1)
Active
(3 barangays:
CS1, L2, SDN2)
Beneficiaries are aware about

the different ways of filing
grievances (1 barangay: Q1)
The grievance redress process
is clear to the beneficiaries (1
barangay: Q1)
Anonymity (1 barangay: Q1)
Immediate response (1
barangay: Q1)
Proper documentation (1
barangay: Q1)
Immediate resolution (1
barangay: Q1)
KC Staff visits from time to time

(about 3 times a week) (2
barangays: CS2, L2)
Commitment
(2 barangays: CS1, L2)
Always present at meetings,

trainings, and seminars
(3 barangays: CS1, L2, SDN2)
Q1
Q1
CS2
L2
SDN2
Q1
Q1
Q1
Q1
L2
CS1
L2
CS1
CS1: Lack of
communication and
coordination
L2: Available to report
when needed and rarely
complains about work
SDN2: All CVs are active
in their roles
CS1, L2: Some CVs are
willing to sacrifice their
time for livelihood
activities
CS1: Some CVs are
committed to their
responsibilities despite
distance
L2: Planting season
92
Responsive to
community
problems and
needs
(6 barangays: L1,
L2, Q1, Q2, SDN1,
SDN2)
System of
Project
Selection
(6
barangays:
L1, L2, Q1,
Q2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Grant
(8
barangays:
CS1, CS2,
L1, L2, Q1,
On-time
(8 barangays:
CS1, CS2, Q1, Q2,
L1, L2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Standards
Inputs
Familiarity about
programs (1
barangay: SDN2)
Uses a grievance
box (1 barangay:
Q1)
Convergence Programs
(1 barangay: complement each
SDN2)
other (1 barangay:
SDN2)
Q1
Able to follow the standard

protocols for grant downloads
Complete and on-time

accomplishment of requirements
(2 barangays: Q1, Q2)
Ensures protection against

potential adverse impact (2
barangays: Q1, Q2)
Prioritizing identified needs

(6 barangays: L1, L2, Q1, Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Indicators
L1
L2
Q1
Q2
CS1
Q1
Scores
SDN1 Q1
SDN2 Q2
L1
L2
Q1
Q2
KC-NCDDP SERVICE PROVIDERS
SDN2
SDN2
Beneficiaries benefit from other

programs (1 barangay: SDN2)
Knowledge gained in trainings
(1 barangay: SDN2)
SDN2
Attendance in other programs

activities (1 barangay: SDN2)
Grievance box is easy to find (1

barangay: Q1)
CS2
SDN1, SDN2: Problem

is with the RPMO,
SDN1, SDN2: Most

needs are ensured
L1, L2: Priorities are
deliberated
Reasons
SDN2: Beneficiaries
attend each others
program
meetings/activities
SDN2: Beneficiaries are
aware that they can
benefit from other
programs
SDN2: Beneficiaries are
aware of what the other
programs are about
93
Continuing (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
New hires are well-informed (2

barangays: SDN1, SDN2)
Submission of monthly reports (2

barangays: L1, L2)
Appropriate timeframe for trainings
(2 barangays: SDN1, SDN2)
L1
L2
L1
L2
Can explain the program in depth

At least college graduate (2
barangays: L1, L2)
With community organizing (CO)
experience (2 barangays: L1, L2)
L1
L2
CS1
CS2
Required number of staff met

(2 barangays: CS1, CS2)
KC-NCDDP
Staff
(6
barangays:
CS1, CS2,
L1, L2,
SDN1,
SDN2)
Sufficient
(2 barangays:
CS1, CS2)
Knowledgeable (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Qualified (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Trained (4
barangays: L1, L2,
SDN1, SDN2)
(8 barangays: CS1, CS2, L1, L2,

Q1, Q2, SDN1, SDN2)
Q2, SDN1,
SDN2)
L1
L2
Q2
SDN1
SDN2
SDN1 SDN1, SDN2: Too

SDN2 many activities are
implemented in the
area and can cause
confusion. There
should be a right
timeframe to have
productivity and avoid
clash between staffs
SDN1 SDN1, SDN2: New
SDN2 staff doesnt know the
area that well and can
be a problem to some
areas
L1, L2: The staff are all

college graduates
L1, L2: Not all staff are
well-experienced in
CO
specifically the declustering of

documents, some
documents get lost
when returned
L1, L2: 100% released
as per subproject plan
CS1: Sufficient number
of staff, fast turnover
94
Capacity
Development
for
Community
Assemblies
(6
barangays:
CS1, CS2,
L1, L2,
SDN1,
SDN2)
Sufficient (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Assistance for CVs
Participative/
Empowering
(6 barangays:
CS1, CS2, L1, L2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Accessible
(4 barangays: L1,
L2, SDN1, SDN2)
SDN1
SDN2
Representation of PWDs, Senior

Citizens, Women, IPs (2
At least 5 assemblies per cycle (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Skills Training
(4 barangays: CS1, CS2, SDN1,
SDN2)
L1
L2
SDN1
SDN2
SDN1
SDN2
Announcements through
communication letters (2
CS1
L1
L2
L1
L2
Starts on-time
80-100% attendance rate

(4 barangays: CS1, CS2, L1, L2)
SDN1
SDN2
SDN1
SDN2
Distance of the venue

(2 barangays: SDN1, SDN2)
Staff stay in the area (2

CS2
CS1
CS2
SDN1, SDN2: Most

staff stay in the area
for the whole cycle
SDN1, SDN2: Venues
are not accessible to
some barangays
L1, L2: Difficult to
gather people and so
gets delayed by an
hour
SDN1, SDN2: No
signal in certain areas,
making it a hard time
to give out
communication letters
CS1, CS2: Lack of
proper communication
CS1, CS2: People
prioritize livelihood
activities
L1, L2: Difficult to
gather people,
assemblies almost
always gets delayed
by an hour
SDN1, SDN2:
Marginalized groups
are well represented
L1, L2: More than 5
were conducted
SDN1, SDN2: CVs are
well-trained in
procurement, finance,
95
Monitoring
(4
barangays:
CS1, CS2,
L1, L2)
Community
Volunteers or
CVs
(8
barangays:
CS1, CS2,
L1, L2, Q1,
Q2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Finance accomplishment (2
Ensures representation of
vulnerable groups (2 barangays:
Q1, Q2)
Complete information about
standards and procedures is
relayed (2 barangays: Q1, Q2)
Weekly monitoring
Progress of the subproject (2
Representative of
vulnerable
groups (2
barangays: Q1,
Q2)
Regular
(4 barangays:
CS1, CS2, L1, L2)
Can meet deadlines for outputs (2

barangays: L1, L2)
Ability to perform specific tasks (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Proper subproject implementation

is ensured despite CV
replacement (2 barangays: CS1,
CS2)
Effective (2
barangays: L1, L2)
(4 barangays:
CS1, CS2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Includes proper
turnover when a
CV needs to be
replaced (2
barangays: CS1,
CS2)
Q1
Q2
L1
L2
CS1
Q1
Q2
CS1
L1
L2
L1
L2
CS1
CS2
CS2
CS2
CS1: Active volunteers

and BDC
CS2: The treasurer
does not do her task
CS1: Door access;
Insurgency; Inactive
CVs and BDCs
CS2: The treasurer
does not do her task
L1, L2: Cannot meet

the deadlines
L1, L2: Not all CVs
have the ability to
perform their tasks
CS1, CS2: CVs lack

commitment, unclear
technical assistance
for staff
infrastructure, and
ODM
96
Accessible (2
barangays: Q1,
Q2)
Handles cases
properly (2
barangays: Q1,
Q2)
Convergence No conflict in
(3
schedule of
barangays:
meetings and
CS2, L1, L2) assemblies (1
barangay: CS2)
Programs are
coordinated (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Grievance
Redress
System (2
barangays:
Q1, Q2)
Monthly MAT meeting (2

barangays: L1, L2)
Program beneficiaries are well

represented in meetings and
assemblies (1 barangay: CS2)
Beneficiaries are aware about the

different ways of filing grievances
Immediate response (2 barangays:
Q1, Q2)
L1
L2
Q1
Q2
Q1
Q2
CS2
CS2: Required
attendance is not
usually met
APPENDIX 7
Sustainable Livelihood Program Consolidated CSC Rerport
COMMUNITY SCORECARD
Program:
Covered area/s:
Date conducted:
Facilitator/type:
Sustainable Livelihood Program

Summary
In general, the SLP Staff were found effective and active as they are always available
when needed; very understanding towards beneficiaries; give advice and training
when needed; treat the beneficiaries equally and able to develop cooperation; closely
monitor the program; and update regularly. But both the beneficiaries and the service
providers flagged the lack of staff. Considering the amount of workload, SLP staff
have difficulties in attending meetings and monitoring all SLP projects in their
assigned areas. It was recommended that the number of staff be increased and that
LGU counterpart be tapped for additional manpower.
Proposal/grant request is a priority for both the beneficiaries and the service
providers. The beneficiaries are satisfied with it because, by directly involving in the
preparation of proposal/grant request, they feel empowered. The service providers,
however, are not satisfied because of the delayed download of funds. They pointed
out two reasons for this: unliquidated cash advances and incidents of beneficiaries
failing to comply with the requirements. It was recommended that the process and
requirements be simplified, not only to accommodate the beneficiaries, but also to
make work easier for service providers.
Both the beneficiaries and the service providers prioritized grant. They are mainly
concerned about sufficiency. The grant is enough to start a small business but it is
not enough to be able to generate income and to sustain the enterprise. Because of
this, beneficiaries are unable to repay the grant and are far from being self-sufficient.
Most of the beneficiaries are concerned about the repayment scheme. This is
because beneficiaries are unable to generate income sufficient for them to repay the
grant on time (capacity for timely repayment). This is an indicator that the
beneficiaries are not yet self-sufficient. The service providers recognized this issue.
Some of them said that the attitude of the beneficiaries could be the problem. The
beneficiaries, however, attribute the lack of capacity for timely repayment to
insufficiency of grant (as mentioned earlier) and to the SLP associations lack of skills
and capacities to generate income. Rethinking repayment policies and capacitybuilding for SLP associations might help develop livelihood sustainability and selfsufficiency.
As mentioned, some of the service providers attribute delayed repayment to the
attitude of the beneficiaries. This can be connected to the concern of the service
providers about beneficiary selection. The service providers flagged the beneficiaries
capability to handle a business. They stressed that they want to select people who
can and would want to sustain the program. This type of selection, however, would
naturally depend on a persons attitude and cannot be determined immediately during
selection.
97
Results
Beneficiaries view
Inputs
SLP Staff (8)
Grant (8)
Proposal/Grant Request (5)
Repayment Scheme (4)
Standards
The SLP staff are effective (4) and active (5).
The grant is sufficient and sustainable (8).
The proposal/grant request is on-time (4).
The repayment scheme ensures timely repayment (4).
Indicators
SLP Staff (8)
Effective (4)
1) Understanding (1)
2) Gives advice when needed (1)
3) Friendly/Approachable (3)
4) Experienced in business management (1)
5) Treats the members equally and able to develop cooperation (1)
6) Transparent and gives out complete report (1)
Active (5)
1) Closely monitoring the program (2)
2) Updates all members (1)
3) Quickly processes grant requests (1)
4) Gives training when needed (1)
5) On-time during meetings (2)
Grant (8)
Sufficient and sustainable (8)
1) Seed Capital Fund provided per eligible SLP participant is less than or equal
to 10,000 pesos (3)
2) Enough to start a small business, to be able to offer a variety of products,
and to be able to properly manage the enterprise (3)
3) Capable of generating income (2)
4) Enough to sustain the enterprise (1)
On-time (4)
1) Grant should be received on time, i.e., 1-2 months to process (4)
2) Able to complete requirements (1)
Repayment Scheme (4)
Timely repayment (4)
1) Individual members are able to repay equivalent to 100% of the expected
repayment due (4)
98
2) Direct to the bank (1)

3) Each member able to save 50 pesos every week (1)
Understanding (Effective in SLP Staff)
Gives advice when needed (Effective in SLP Staff)
Friendly/Approachable (Effective in SLP Staff)
Experienced in business management (Effective in SLP Staff)
Treats the members equally and able to develop cooperation (Effective in SLP
Staff)
Transparent and gives out complete report (Effective in SLP Staff)
Closely monitoring the program (Active in SLP Staff)
Updates all members (Active in SLP Staff)
Quickly processes grant requests (Active in SLP Staff)
Gives training when needed (Active in SLP Staff)
On-time during meetings (Active in SLP Staff)
Enough to start a small business, to be able to offer a variety of products, and to
be able to properly manage the enterprise (Sufficient and sustainable in Grant)
Grant should be received on time, i.e., 1-2 months to process (On-time in
Proposal/Grant Request)
Able to complete requirements (On-time in Proposal/Grant Request)
Direct to the bank (Timely repayment in Repayment Scheme)
Each member able to save 50 pesos every week (Timely repayment in
Repayment Scheme)
Seed Capital Fund provided per eligible SLP participant is less than or equal to
10,000 pesos (Sufficient and sustainable in Grant)
Enough to sustain the enterprise (Sufficient and sustainable in Grant)
Individual members are able to repay equivalent to 100% of the expected
repayment due (Timely repayment in Repayment Scheme)
Inputs
Monitoring and Evaluation System (7)
Selection Process (6)
Grant (4)
Standards
The proposal/grant request is simple (4) and on-time (5).
The monitoring and evaluation system is effective (7).
The selection process is accurate (6).
The grant is sufficient (4).
Indicators
99
Simple (4)
1) Not a burden/Less papers or documents (4)
2) Timeframe is enough (2)
On-time (5)
1) Exact amount received on time, i.e., Seed Capital Fund is released to
individual members within 2 weeks upon approval of proposal or upon
awarding of checks to the SLP Association (5)
Monitoring and Evaluation System (7)
Effective (7)
1) Documented, timely, and comprehensive (7)
Selection Process (6)
Accurate (6)
1) 4Ps beneficiary, i.e., listed under NHTS-PR or considered vulnerable as
certified by the LGU (4)
2) Willing and capable, i.e., participants are at least 16 years of age; those
below 18 years have secured consent from parent/guardian and
demonstrate capacity to pursue microenterprise venture (4)
Grant (4)
Sufficient (4)
1) Seed Capital Fund provided per eligible SLP participant is less than or equal
to 10,000 pesos (2)
2) 75% target beneficiaries (2)
Timeframe is enough (Simple in Proposal/Grant Request)
Documented, timely, and comprehensive (Effective in Monitoring and
Evaluation System)
4Ps beneficiary, i.e., listed under NHTS-PR or considered vulnerable as
certified by the LGU (Accurate in Selection Process)
10,000 pesos (Sufficient in Grant)
75% target beneficiaries (Sufficient in Grant)
Not a burden/Less papers or documents (Simple in Proposal/Grant Request)
Exact amount received on time, i.e., Seed Capital Fund is released to individual
members within 2 weeks upon approval of proposal or upon awarding of checks
to the SLP Association (On-time in Proposal/Grant Request)
Interface
Inputs
Grant
Proposal/Grant Request
Only the beneficiaries prioritized:
100
SLP Staff
Repayment Scheme

Monitoring and Evaluation System
Selection Process
Standards
Sufficient in Grant
On-time in Proposal/Grant Request
Simple in Proposal/Grant Request
Indicators
10,000 pesos (Sufficient in Grant)
to the SLP Association (On-time in Proposal/Grant Request)
Enough to start a small business, to be able to offer a variety of products, and
to be able to properly manage the enterprise (Sufficient in Grant)
Capable of generating income (Sufficient in Grant)
Enough to sustain the enterprise (Sufficient in Grant)
Able to complete requirements (On-time in Proposal/Grant Request)
75% target beneficiaries (Sufficient in Grant)
Both beneficiaries and service providers had the same rating in 0 indicators.
They differed in:
10,000 pesos: the beneficiaries rated it with not satisfied while the service
providers rated it with satisfied
to the SLP Association: the beneficiaries rated it with satisfied while the service
providers rated it with not satisfied
Enough to start a small business, to be able to offer a variety of products, and
to be able to properly manage the enterprise: satisfied
Enough to sustain the enterprise: not satisfied
101
Able to complete requirements: satisfied

75% target beneficiaries: satisfied
On desired qualitative and quantitative outputs achieved on time by SLP staff (5
barangays: CS2, L1, Q2, SDN1, SDN2)
Additional SLP staff
Tap LGU counterpart for manpower
On timely repayment (3 barangays: CS1, L2, Q1)
Monitoring: monthly visit by PDOs and monitoring by group president
Communicate the concern to the PDO, MSWDO, and Mayor and ask if it is
possible to scrap the repayment policy
Develop the capacity to repay through re-orientation, values formation, and
skills training
Reform the repayment policy
Pray
On completing requirements for proposal/grant request (2 barangays: L1, SDN2)
Early preparation and submission of proposal
Simplify requirements
On timely release of grant (2 barangays: L1, Q1)
Fast-track release by following up through Division Chief
Fast-track liquidation of unliquidated advances of LGUs
On additional grant (2 barangays: L1, SDN1)
Improve management: continuous monitoring and additional skills training
Additional proposal
On tapping partners with potential resources (2 barangays: CS1, CS2)
Tap government agencies (e.g., DA and DOLE for hog raising)
Careful identification of factors to boost the business
On beneficiaries willingness to attend trainings (1 barangay: SDN1)
Introduce the benefits they can get from livelihood projects: send a letter 1 week
prior to the training/seminar
On additional skills training extended to SLP Association (1 barangay: Q2)
Skills training on vinegar production: link with DA
On limited office supplies and equipment (1 barangay: L1)
Secure funding
102
103
Qualified (2
barangays: Q1, Q2)
Effective (4
barangays: L1, L2,
SDN1, SDN2)
SLP Staff (8
barangays: CS1,
CS2, L1, L2, Q1,
Q2, SDN1, SDN2)
Standards
Selection Process
(2 barangays: Q1,
Q2)
Inputs
Willing and capable,
i.e., participants are at
least 16 years of age;
those below 18 years
have secured consent
from parent/guardian
and demonstrate
capacity to pursue
microenterprise
venture (2 barangays:
Q1, Q2)
4Ps beneficiary, i.e.,
listed under NHTS-PR
or considered
vulnerable as certified
by the LGU (2
barangays: Q1, Q2)
Understanding (1
barangay: SDN1)
Gives advice when
needed (1 barangay:
L1)
Friendly/Approachable
(3 barangays: L1, L2,
SDN1)
Experienced in
business management
(1 barangay: L2)
Treats the members
equally and able to
develop cooperation (1
barangay: L2)
Indicators
Q1
Q2
Scores
Q1
Q2
L2
L2
L2
L1
SDN1
L1
SDN1
SLP BENEFICIARIES
Reasons
104
Grant (8 barangays:
CS1, CS2, L1, L2,
Q1, Q2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Sufficient and
sustainable (8
barangays: CS1, CS2,
L1, L2, Q1, Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Sufficient (3
barangays: Q1, Q2,
SDN2)
Active (5 barangays:
CS1, CS2, L1, L2,
SDN2)
Enough to start a small

business, to be able to
offer a variety of
products, and to be
able to properly
manage the enterprise
Quickly processes
grant requests (1
barangay: L1)
Gives training when
needed (1 barangay:
L1)
On-time during
meetings (2
Can attend meetings
and other concerns
regarding the program
SDN2)
Seed Capital Fund
provided per eligible
SLP participant is less
than or equal to 10,000
pesos (3 barangays:
Q1, Q2, SDN2)
Transparent and gives

out complete report (1
barangay: SDN2)
Closely monitoring the
program (2 barangays:
CS1, L1)
Updates all members
(1 barangay: CS2)
CS1
Q2
L2
SDN2
L1
CS2
CS1
SDN2
L1
L1
L1
SDN1
Q1
SDN2
Q1
Q2
SDN2
SDN2: Should be 1
million
105
Proposal/Grant
Request (5
barangays: CS2,
L2, Q2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Repayment
Scheme (4
barangays: CS1,
L2, Q1, SDN1)
Clear (2 barangays:
Q2, SDN1)
On-time (4 barangays:
CS2, L2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Humane (1 barangay:
L2)
Able to support
additional number of
groups (1 barangay:
L1)
Timely repayment (4
barangays: CS1, L2,
Q1, SDN1)
Individual members
are able to repay
equivalent to 100% of
the expected
repayment due (4
barangays: CS1, L2,
Q1, SDN1)
Direct to the bank (1
barangay: L2)
Each member able to
save 50 pesos every
week (1 barangay: L2)
Gives chances (2
times) when payments
get delayed because
of valid reasons (1
barangay: L2)
Clear instructions (2
Grant should be
received on time (1-2
months to process) (4
Capable of generating
income (2 barangays:
CS2, L2)
Enough to sustain the
enterprise (1
barangay: L1)
Additional number of
groups (1 barangay:
L1)
(3 barangays: CS1, L1,

SDN1)
CS2
L2
L2
L2
L2 (5)
Q2
SDN1
SDN1
SDN2
L2
L1
L2 (5)
CS1
L2
SDN1
L1
CS2
Q1
SDN1: Most instructions

are clear
SDN1: Able to receive
grant immediately most
of the time
L2: Gives chances when

there is a valid reason
L2: Payments may be

given to the officer
L2: All members are able
to save
CS1: Unable to generate

income that is sufficient
to repay the grant
SDN1: Beneficiaries feel
it is hard to pay and
sustain the repayment
CS2: Not enough to

generate income
106

Regular (2 barangays:
L2, SDN1)
Effective (1 barangay:
Q1)
Participative (1
barangay: SDN2)
Convergence (1
barangay: SDN2)
Sustainable (1
barangay: Q2)
Acceptable duration (1
barangay: SDN2)
Allowance (1
barangay: SDN2)
Knowledgeable (1
barangay: CS2)
Properly scheduled (1
barangay: SDN2)
Appropriate (1
barangay: CS2)
Monitoring and
Evaluation System
(3 barangays: L2,
Q1, SDN1)
Partner/Service
Provider (1
barangay: CS2)
Post-SCF Grant
Assistance (1
barangay: Q2)
Training
Component (2
barangays: CS2,
SDN2)
Participative (1
barangay: SDN2)
2-3 days (1 barangay:

SDN2)
100 pesos per day (1
barangay: SDN2)
Well-informed about
the project (1
barangay: CS2)
Additional skills
training extended to
SLP Association (1
barangay: Q2)
Once a month (2
Documented, timely,
and comprehensive (1
barangay: Q1)
Complete attendance
(1 barangay: SDN2)
Able to complete
requirements (1
barangay: L2)
Community
participation (1
barangay: SDN2)
Depending on the
interest of
stakeholders (1
barangay: CS2)
Not impromptu (1
barangay: SDN2)
barangays: CS2, L2,

SDN1, SDN2)
SDN2
L2
CS2
CS2
SDN2
L2
Q1
SDN1
SDN2
Q2
SDN2
SDN2
SDN2: All program

beneficiaries attend the
meetings
SDN2: Trainings should

not be impromptu, there
should be at least 1 day
notice
SDN2: Training duration
is okay
SDN2: Training
allowance is insufficient
CS2: Participants enjoy

trainings
SDN2: Community
members fully participate
SDN2: Grant requests

arrive 1-2 months
107
Effective (7
barangays: CS1,
L1, L2, Q1, Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Monitoring and
Evaluation System
(7 barangays:
CS1, L1, L2, Q1,
Q2, SDN1, SDN2)
SLP Staff (1
barangay: CS2)
Sufficient (1
barangay: CS2)
Accurate (6
barangays: CS1,
CS2, Q1, Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Standards
Selection Process
(6 barangays:
CS1, CS2, Q1,
Q2, SDN1, SDN2)
Inputs
Empowering (1
barangay: SDN2)
4Ps beneficiary, i.e.,

listed under NHTS-PR
or considered
vulnerable as certified
by the LGU (4
barangays: CS1, CS2,
Q1, Q2)
Willing and capable,
i.e., participants are at
least 16 years of age;
those below 18 years
have secured consent
from parent/guardian
and demonstrate
capacity to pursue
microenterprise venture
SDN1, SDN2)
Documented, timely,
and comprehensive (7
barangays: CS1, Q1,
Q2, L1, L2, SDN1,
SDN2)
Desired qualitative and
quantitative outputs are
achieved on-time (1
barangay: CS2)
Indicators
CS1
CS1
CS2
SDN2
Q1
Q2
SDN1
SDN2
Q1
Q2
CS2
L1
L2
SDN1
SDN2
Scores
Q1
Q2
SLP SERVICE PROVIDERS
Involves the
community in decisionmaking (1 barangay:
SDN2)
CS2: Lack of SLP staff

considering the
geographical condition of
the area
L1, L2: Lack of staff

SDN1, SDN2: Presence is
felt in most areas
SDN1, SDN2: Some

beneficiaries are not
attending meetings;
attitude is a factor
Reasons
SDN2: Community feels

a sense of empowerment
through the decisionmaking process
108
Proposal/Grant
Request (7
barangays: CS2,
L1, L2, Q1, Q2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Grant (4
barangays: L1, L2,
Q1, Q2)
On-time (5
barangays: CS2,
L1, L2, Q1, Q2)
Simple (4
barangays: L1, L2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Competent in terms
of knowledge, skills,
and attitude or KSA
(1 barangay: CS2)
Sufficient (4
barangays: L1, L2,
Q1, Q2)
Exact amount received

on time, i.e., Seed
Capital Fund is
released to individual
members within 2
weeks upon approval of
proposal or upon
awarding of checks to
the SLP Association (5
barangays: CS2, L1,
L2, Q1, Q2)
Timeframe is enough (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Desired qualitative and

quantitative outputs are
achieved on-time (1
barangay: CS2)
Seed Capital Fund
provided per eligible
SLP participant is less
than or equal to 10,000
pesos (2 barangays:
Q1, Q2)
75% target
beneficiaries (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Not a burden / Less
papers or documents (4
barangays: L1, L2,
SDN1, SDN2)
CS2
SDN1
SDN2
L1
L2
Q1
Q2
CS2
L1
L2
Q1
Q2
SDN1
SDN2
L1
L2
L1, L2: Too many

documents required
SDN1, SDN2: Some
requirements are not
completed
SDN1, SDN2: DSWD
wants to hasten the
proposal/grant request,
service provider tries to
make the deadline
CS2: Delayed downloading
of grant
L1, L2: It takes one year to
process
L1, L2: Insufficient funds
CS2: Competent SLP staff
109
Post-SCF Grant
Assistance (2
barangays: Q1,
Q2)
Clear (1 barangay:
CS2)
Training
Component (1
barangay: CS2)
Partner/Service
Provider (3
barangays: CS2,
SDN1, SDN2)
Sustainable (2
barangays: Q1, Q2)
Able to tap partners

with potential
resources (1
barangay: CS2)
Supportive (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Active (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Timely repayment
(3 barangays: CS1,
L1, L2)
Repayment
Scheme (3
barangays: CS1,
L1, L2)
Responsive to
CDED principles (1
barangay: CS2)
Approachable (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Good listener (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Has LGU counterpart (2
barangays: SDN1,
SDN2)
Assistance extended to
SLP Association in
securing registration
(DOLE, CDA, SEC, or
other entities) to
establish legal entity (2
barangays: Q1, Q2)
Resource-based,
market-driven,
economically-viable,
culturally-sensitive,
environment-friendly (1
barangay: CS2)
Individual members are
able to repay equivalent
to 100% of the
expected repayment
due (3 barangays: CS1,
L1, L2)
Follows the training
module (1 barangay:
CS2)
With written agreement
(1 barangay: CS2)
CS2
CS2
Q1
Q2
SDN1
SDN2
SDN1
SDN2
CS2
L1
L2
SDN1
SDN2
CS1
SDN1, SDN2:
Partner/Service Providers
are mostly approachable
SDN1, SDN2: Can take
negative comments in a
positive manner
SDN1, SDN2: Too many
LGU programs, they cant
support SLP that much
CS2: All potential partners

are not yet tapped
CS1: Some SLP

beneficiaries had been
affected by pests
L1, L2: Beneficiaries
cannot meet the deadlines
for repayment
110
Office Supplies
and Equipment (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Consultation with
stakeholders (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Convergence (3
barangays: CS1,
L1, L2)
Participative (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Regular (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Stakeholders are
involved from
planning to program
implementation (1
barangay: CS1)
Programs
complement each
other (2 barangays:
L1, L2)
Sufficient (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Enough for the needs
of the staff (2
barangays: L1, L2)
100% attendance (2
barangays: L1, L2)
Quarterly meeting (2
barangays: L1, L2)
No conflict of schedule
for meetings (2
barangays: L1, L2)
SLP Association is
capacitated to link with
other stakeholders to
avail of other services
Resources were utilized
(1 barangay: CS1)
L1
L2
L1
L2
L1
L2
Q1
Q2
CS1
L1
L2
L1, L2: Conflict of schedule
L1, L2: Very limited
CS1: External resources

were not fully tapped

CSC Manual

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CSC Manual

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

ABOUT THE PROJECT

LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR

GIGAQUIT, SURIGAO DEL NORTE

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

ABOUT THE REPORT

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

DAY 1: BARANGAY GITNANG BARRIO

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

The SLP beneficiaries were not satisfied to most

the term poor as some beneficiaries find this

Some members of the SLP group were taking notes

The SLP service providers, however, were overall

providers also informed the beneficiaries that, to

The scores given by the KC beneficiaries show

Another issue that surfaced during the interface

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

The Pantawid group highlighted the need for a

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

The program ended by 5:15 in the afternoon.

DAY 2: BARANGAY TABING DAGAT

ANSA-EAP DSWD-CSC Team led an icebreaker.

She then asked the participants to write what

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

PRIORITIZATION AND SCORING

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

each group to report the group outputs to the

The participants had their lunch around 12:35, after

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

a mix of women and men. Everyone was actively

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

LIBMANAN , CAMARINES SUR

DAY 1: BARANGAY BAHAO

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

PRIORITIZATION AND SCORING

Seeing the output of the KC beneficiaries, it

The Pantawid beneficiaries were satisfied with

As for the SLP beneficiaries, their main concern

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

The main concern of the SLP service providers

The KC beneficiaries and service providers

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

problem that was raised by the beneficiaries. The

The program ended at 3:15 in the afternoon. It

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

DAY 2: BARANGAY POTOT

PRIORITIZATION AND SCORING

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

Same as the Pantawid beneficiaries, the output

As for the SLP beneficiaries, most of the priority

Most of the KC service providers were males.

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

DAY 1: BARANGAY DANAO

DSWD COMMUNITY SCORE CARD PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

the icebreaker, the discussion on priority inputs,

Below is the output of the KC beneficiaries:

PRIORITIZATION AND SCORING

Below is the output of the SLP beneficiaries:

The beneficiaries were further grouped into the