Evidenced-Based Barangay Planning and Budgeting using CBMS Data

Aniceto C. Orbeta, Jr. PIDS May 22, 2007

Objectives

General objective: Strategic use of CBMS data to improve the empirical basis of local planning and budgeting Specific objective: Improve / Enhance CBMS Planning and Budgeting Modules Focus:
Improve

empirical basis of the content of planning and budgeting not procedural matters What are doable at the LGU level

Outline of Presentation

Using CBMS Data in Generic Analytical Procedures

Benchmarking Using

analytical frameworks Disaggregation by socioeconomic groups

Using CBMS Data in Planning Using CBMS Data in Budgeting Spreadsheet-based Barangay Budgeting Workbook

CBMS Data and Generic Analytical Procedures

Benchmarking Analytical Frameworks Disaggregation by socioeconomic class

Benchmarking

Benchmarking - comparing performance of barangay with

Other

barangays Past performance Planning standards

Involves
Identifying

relevant indicators Generating / gathering the indicators Comparing indicators

Benchmarking
Identifying relevant indicators Determined by development goals and objectives Examples
Poverty

Alleviation: CBMS 13+1 Core indicators Global Millennium Development Goals National goals and objectives from the MTPDP

Benchmarking
Sources of benchmarking information CBMS data from other barangays and previous rounds for the same barangay Similar national, regional, provincial and municipal indicators from national censuses and representative surveys Planning standards

Benchmarking
Generating / gathering benchmarking indicators Using StatSim to generate CBMS indicators Using published indicators from national censuses and surveys Processing public use files (PUFs) of national censuses and surveys

Benchmarking
Things to watch out for in using published indicators, e.g. differences in definition Target population

Malnourished Children: 0-5 vs 0-4 School attendance: 6-12 vs 7-13 Unemployment past week, past quarter Income: One year (FIES), 6 months (APIS) Food shortage past month, past quarter Safe water supply what are considered safe water source Sanitary toilets what types are considered sanitary Makeshift housing what constitutes makeshift housing

Reference periods

Specific attributes

Benchmarking
Development Framework / Vision The subsequent illustrative benchmarking exercises considers the CBMS 13+1 Core Indicators as the desired set of development indicators

You can have a slightly or completely different set of development indicators in the future but not during this training; hopefully, after the training you can handle any set of development indicators in the future

Benchmarking
Benchmarking for Jonobjonob, Escalante, Negros Occidental
Area Indicators Survey Estimate Benchmarks

Nutrition

Proportion of malnourished children aged 0-5 years old

Jonob-jonob: Total: 0.72 Male: 0.21 Female: 1.20 Hacienda Fe: Total: 12.50 Male: 12.90 Female: 11.90

Underweight 0-5 years old National [2003 NNS]: - Total: 27.6 - Boys: 27.2 - Girls: 28.1 Regional (2001 Update): - Total: 35.2 Provincial (2001 Update): - Total: 42.6 Municipality: -Magalona: NA -Escalante: NA Barangay: Socioeconomic groups: NA in NNS

Benchmarking
Benchmarking for Jonobjonob, Escalante, Negros Occidental
Area
Education

Indicators
Proportion of children 612 years old not in elementary school

Survey Estimate
Jonob-jonob: Total: 22.30 Male: 23.00 Female: 21.50 Hacienda Fe: Total: 22.20 Male: 24.10 Female: 20.00

Benchmarks
Children 6-12 who are in elementary: National: 90.6 [APIS 2004] Regional: Provincial Municipal: Barangay Socioeconomic groups: Bottom 30%: 91.4 [APIS 2004] Higher 70% : 90.1 [APIS 2004]

Proportion of children 13-16 not in secondary school

Jonob-jonob: Total: 56.60 Male: 66.50 Female: 44.30 Hacienda Fe: Total: 50.50 Male: 56.50 Female: 42.90

Children 13-16 who are in high school: National: 74.5 [APIS 2004] Regional: Provincial Municipal: Barangay Socioeconomic groups: Bottom 30%: 63.0 [APIS 2004] Higher 70% : 82.0 [APIS 2004]

Benchmarking
Benchmarking for Jonobjonob, Escalante, Negros Occidental
Area
Water and Sanitation

Indicators
Proportion of households without access to safe water supply

Survey Estimate
Jonobjonob: 47.90 Hacienda Fe: 57.50

Benchmarks
National: 80.2 [APIS 2004] Regional: Provincial Municipal: Barangay Socioeconomic groups: Bottom 30%: 65.4 [APIS 2004] Higher 70% : 86.5 [APIS 2004]

Proportion of households without access to sanitary toilet facilities

Jonobjonob: 56.40 Hacienda Fe: 81.00

National: 86.2 [APIS 2004] Regional: Provincial Municipal: Barangay Socioeconomic groups: Bottom 30%: 69.7 [APIS 2004] Higher 70% : 93.2 [APIS 2004]

Benchmarking
Benchmarking for Jonobjonob, Escalante, Negros Occidental
Area
Employment

Indicators
Proportion of persons in the labor force who are unemployed

Survey Estimate
Jonobjonob: Total: 0.30 Male: 0.20 Female: 0.40 Hacienda Fe: Total: 0.20 Male: 0.20 Female: 0.00

Benchmarks
National: 7.3 [Oct 2006, LFS] Regional: 6.1 [Oct 2006, LFS] Provincial: NA Municipal: NA Barangay

Income

Proportion of household with income below the poverty threshold

Jonobjonob: 53.10 Hacienda Fe: 75.20

Poverty Incidence (families) National: 24.4 [FIES 2003] Regional: 31.4 [FIES 2003] Provincial: 31.4 [FIES 2003] Municipal: Barangay

Benchmarking
Benchmarking for Jonobjonob, Escalante, Negros Occidental
Area Indicators
Proportion of households with income below the food threshold

Survey Estimate
Jonobjonob: 36.60 Hacienda Fe: 58.20

Benchmarks
Food Poverty Incidence (families) National: 10.2 [FIES 2003] Regional: 12.9 [FIES 2003] Provincial: 13.0 [FIES 2003] Municipal: Barangay

Proportion of households who experienced food shortage

Jonobjonob: 0.60 Hacienda Fe: 0.40

National: Regional: Provincial Municipal: Barangay

Benchmarking says

Nutrition may not be a pressing problem, in general, but it should be noted that girls have higher malnutrition incidence than boys School attendance a big problem and in addition boys have higher non- a ttendance rates than girls particularly at the secondary level Sanitation a big problem both for toilet and for water Almost everybody working but poverty incidence is still very high High subsistence (food) poverty incidence but very small incidence of hunger

Benchmarking
Can also be done using Historical performance, (e.g. when there are several rounds of CBMS surveys) Planning standards

Benchmarking
Assessing benchmarking results

Compare development issues identified from benchmarking results using CBMS data with those identified using other methods, e.g. direct consultations Compare in terms of
Issues

identified Priority issues identified Target population identified

Using Analytical Frameworks

Use Analytical Frameworks to: Understand causes of development issues better Enrich strategy formulation

Using Frameworks
Determinants Framework

Determinants

Outcomes

Using Frameworks
Proximate Determinants Framework

Underlying Determinants

Proximate Determinants

Outcomes

Davis and Blake (1955-56)

Using Frameworks
Proximate Determinants Framework Group determinants into underlying and proximate Proximate determinants are those whose impact are more direct and seldom change from one society or socioeconomic group to the next Underlying factors are those that cant be considered proximate or direct but are known to play also important roles in determining the outcomes

Using Frameworks
Determinants of Health Outcomes: Proximate Determinants Framework

Underlying Determinants Individual Household Community

Proximate Determinants Health care service utilization Sanitation & environmental contamination Nutrient / Dietary intake Fertility Injury

Outcomes Mortality Morbidity Nutritional Status Disability

Orbeta (1994)

Using Frameworks
Determinants of Education Outcomes: Proximate Determinants Framework
Proximate Determinants School characteristics Individual Student characteristics Household Community Labor market characteristics Enrollment / Participation Education attainment of population Retention / dropout / completion Scores in standardized tests Skills-employment opportunities matching Socio-moral values Underlying Factors Outcomes Literacy/Numeracy

Orbeta (1994)

Using Frameworks
Determinants of Housing Outcomes: Proximate Determinants Framework

Underlying Determinants Household Community

Proximate Determinants Housing standards Financing schemes Affordability of housing units Rate of urbanization Housing need

Outcomes Tenure / type of occupancy Type and quality of housing units Site services / facilities available

Orbeta (1994)

Using Frameworks
Implications There are other determinants besides obvious direct determinants
School

attendance is not only determined by education variables (e.g. availability of school) but others such as health status of child, attitudes of parents towards schooling

We need to examine the role of these other determinants as well

Using frameworks
Implications (cont.)

Use determinants frameworks to identify important determinants of outcomes of interest Use determinants to identify the needed components of intervention programs Often details and more in-depth information on the determinants and how important they are can only be generated from FGDs with frameworks as guide on what questions to ask for specific issues

Using frameworks
Presence of Malnourished Children and Household Characteristics, Langub, Escalante 2006 Magnitude of the problem Prop. of households Mean per Mean capita household in makeshift income size housing 6,458 8,390 10,382 5.9 5.6 3.8 5.7 4.7 2.9 Prop. who are informal settlers 3.8 0.5 2.2 With malnourished children Households with malnourished Proportion

With malnourished children Without malnourished children Without member 0-5

53 190 410

8.1 29.1 62.8

With malnourished children

Prop. of households Prop. without income access to poor sanitary toilet 81.1 81.1 73.2 96.2 92.1 80.5

Prop. Prop. Prop. With Experiensubsistence unemployed cing food poor member shortage 81.1 80.5 62.7 7.5 4.2 1.7 3.8 3.2 5.1

With malnourished children Without malnourished children Without member 0-5

Using frameworks

Households with and without malnourished child

Large

difference in mean per capita income (6,458 vs 8,390) and poverty (96.2 vs 92.1) Some difference in housing quality (makeshift housing) (5.7% vs 4.7%) Large difference among informal settlers (3.8% vs 0.5%)

Using frameworks
Presence of Children 6-12 not Attending Elementary School and Household Characteristics, Langub, Escalante, 2006 Magnitude of the problem Households with members not in elementary 202 89 362 Prop. Of Prop. Of Prop. In households Mean per Mean capita household makeshift informal with settlers house members 6- income size 12 not in elem school 30.9 13.6 55.4 8,132 6,533 10,968 5.6 3.0 7.0 6.7 3.3 3.3 1.0 1.1 2.5 Prop. Without access to safe water 78.7 78.7 80.4

Elementary school participation

All members attending elementary With members not in elementary No member 6-12

Elementary school participation

Prop. Without Prop. of Prop. Of access to income subsistence poor sanitary poor toilet 76.2 87.6 73.2 89.1 92.1 81.2 76.7 82.0 62.2

Prop. Who Prop. With experience unemployed food members shortage

All members attending elementary With members not in elementary No member 6-12

4.5 5.6 1.4

5.4 4.5 3.9

Using frameworks

Household with non-attending and attending elementary school-aged child

Large

difference in mean per capita income (6,533 vs 8,132) and poverty (92.1 vs 89.1) Large difference in household size (7.0 vs 5.6) Large difference in housing quality (makeshift housing: 6.7 vs 3.0) (sanitary toilet: 87.6 vs 76.2)

Disaggregation by socioeconomic groups

Motivations, in general:

Development must be for all (inclusive) Socioeconomic classes are known to play important roles in determining household outcomes Know the differences in outcomes by different socioeconomic groups Know whether the differences are large enough to justify special concern, i.e. targeting is warranted

Disaggregation
Motivations, specific to planning:

Useful for determining efficiency of generating outcomes Useful for determining effectiveness of interventions (PPAs) Useful for determining equity in access to services which are important determinants of fairness in outcomes

Disaggregation
Common disaggregation:
Disaggregation by gender Disaggregation by income class Disaggregation by ethnic groups

Disaggregation

StatSim now generates

Gender-disaggregated

individual-based

CBMS indicators 13+1 Core indicators by income classes

Disaggregation
Some gender disparities:

Malnutrition: higher for female (1.2% vs. 0.2%) Education: higher proportion of male not attending school; (elementary: 23% vs 21.5%), (secondary: 66.5% vs 44.3) Unemployment: higher from female (0.4% vs 0.2%)

Disaggregation by socioeconomic groups

By income classes
Jonobjonob, Negros Oriental (%) Mean per capita income 3,527 8,614 13,403 20,358 58,086 20,777 0.0607 No access to safe water 35.62 38.83 49.48 50.34 62.89 47.43 0.5664 No access With malWith children With children to sanitary nourished 6-12 not attending 13-16 not attending toilet 0-5 year old elem. school high school 70.21 63.36 63.92 50.86 30.93 55.87 2.2700 2.47 0.65 0 0 0 0.78 NA 18.13 13.13 11.51 11.32 10.26 13.51 1.7671 60.31 48.32 49.49 37.89 17.39 46.92 3.4681 Income Group Poorest Lower middle Middle Upper middle Richest Total Poorest/Richest Ratio

Disaggregation by socioeconomic groups

Mean per capita income of the poorest is only 6% compared to the richest Surprisingly, the proportion of the poorest without access to safe water is only about 50% of the richest Proportion of the poorest without access to sanitary toilets is more than twice that of the richest Malnutrition problem is concentrated on the bottom 2 quintiles Proportion of the poorest with elementary and high school - a g ed children not attending school compared to the riches is 1.8 and 3.5 , respectively.

Disaggregation by income / wealth classes

Access to programs by income classes

GRPB and CBMS

Disparity in outcomes Disparity in access to programs Analyze impact of proposed PPAs in terms of impact on women

Women

empowerment Re-enforcing traditional typecasts

CBMS Data and Planning

The Planning Cycle

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Situation Analysis; Problem / Development Issues Identification Vision, Goals, Objectives, Strategic Directions Strategies / Interventions Authorization / Legitimization Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation

Planning Cycle and the CBMS

Situation Analysis; Identifying Development Issues / Problems Stock- taking; where are we in comparison to our peers, x years ago, and/or some planning standards?

CBMS provide comprehensive data on economic, demographic, social situation including structure of household income sources, disaggregation by socioeconomic status CBMS provide data for benchmarking enabling comparisons:

across (similar) areas, across time, and with planning standards

Benchmarking done earlier says

Nutrition may not be a pressing problem, in general, but it should be noted that girls have higher malnutrition incidence than boys School attendance a big problem and in addition boys have higher non- a ttendance rates than girls particularly at the secondary level Sanitation a big problem both for toilet and for water Almost everybody working but poverty incidence is still very high High subsistence (food) poverty incidence but very small incidence of hunger

Planning Cycle and the CBMS

Vision, Goals, Objectives, Strategic Direction Identifying development vision, goals, objectives and direction and translating these into measurable indicators of progress

CBMS provide data for performance indicators; data for targets and target setting Examples of development vision and corresponding indicators:
Poverty

Alleviation: CBMS 13+1 core indicators MDG: MDG Indicators

Goals, Objectives, and Strategic Direction - Increase school attendance in the elementary and secondary particularly for boys - Increase access to sanitary toilets and water sources - Improve income sources for poor households - Reduce malnutrition incidence particularly for girls

Planning Cycle and the CBMS

Strategies / Interventions Identifying and configuring program, projects and activities (PPAs) including identification of intended beneficiaries (number, demographic composition, spatial location)

CBMS data provides information that will guide the configuring of PPAs identifying needed components beyond the obvious direct interventions needed usefulness of intervention frameworks

Analytical frameworks, FGD says ..

Access

to sanitary toilet facilities may require more than providing bowls but education campaign as well Access to safe water sources is not due to lack of financing capacity

Planning Cycle and the CBMS

Authorization / Legitimization Before a plan can be implemented it has to be authorized / legitimized by appropriate bodies (e.g. by the barangay assembly for a barangay; respective sanggunian for municipality/province)

CBMS provide same data set used for plan preparation for plan review
Common

data set facilitate authorization Review can now go beyond compliance to statutory requirements into assessment of development issues and the structure and configuration of PPAs

Planning Cycle and the CBMS

Implementation Implementation involves programming; implementation monitoring

CBMS provide detailed data for programming; implementation monitoring will mostly rely on administrative reports

Planning Cycle and the CBMS

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) M&E is about determining if barangay is moving towards achieving stated goals and identifying what intervention works and what does not work

CBMS provides baseline / post-intervention data (when there are several rounds of CBMS surveys) for monitoring and evaluation

CBMS Data and Budgeting

The Budgeting Cycle

a. Budget Preparation b.Budget Authorization c. Budget Review d.Budget Execution e. Budget Accountability

Budgeting and CBMS Data

Proposals
Use

CBMS results for budget preparation, particularly, to determine program structure Use CBMS results for budget authorization and review

Focus: Improving empirical basis of budgeting rather than procedural steps or forms to fill-up

Budgeting and CBMS

Key activities in Budget Preparation

Analysis

of sources of income Configuring the expenditure program

New initiative: using outcomes - output framework to improve results - orientation of budget process

Analysis of sources of income

Purpose

Revenue forecasting By Type

Components
Tax revenues (IRA here) Non-tax revenues Own Source External sources (IRA here)

By Source

Analysis of composition and trend

Compute percentage shares of each component Note the trends and changes in percentage shares

Forecasting revenues

Data for Sources of Income Existing revenues: Data from administrative reports (e.g. previous income from tax revenues, non-tax revenues); New revenue sources: Estimated income from proposed revenue measures

Configuring the Expenditure Program PPAs Components

Personnel Maintenance

and Other Operating Expense

(MOOE) Capital Outlay

Expenditure Program (cont.) Statutory Requirements

Personnel Non-Office

( 55% of local sources)

Development Fund (20% of IRA) SK a trust fund (10% of general fund) Calamity (5% of regular sources) GAD (5% of total annual appropriation)

BBPF2

ACTUAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE FOR PAST YEAR Barangay: Barangay ABC City/Municipality: City of DEF Part A. Actual Income Beginning Balance Share on Internal Revenue Collections Share on Real Property Tax Business Taxes (Stores & Retailers) Shares on Sand & Gravel Tax Share on National Wealth Share on EVAT Miscellaneous Taxes on Goods & Services Other Taxes Other Specific Income Subsidy from Other LGUs Total Available Resources Part B. Actual Expenditures Program/Project/Activity Major Final Output TOTAL 0.00 1,492,912.00 201,807.34 10,000.00

2,000.00

1,706,719.34

Personal Services

Maintenance & Other Operating Expenses

Capital Outlay

TOTAL

Agricultural Services 1.1 Establishment of Plant Nursery Daycare Services Health and Nutrition Services Peace & Order Services Administrative & Legislative Services Implementation of Development Projects (20% of IRA) Implementation of SK Projects (10% of SK Funds) Implementation of Projects/Activities for Unforseen Events (5% Calamity Fund) Other Services (GAD 5%) Total Expenditures Balance/Deficit

25,200.00 78,120.00 817,748.56 79,044.53 67,080.01

0.00 0.00 25,200.00 78,120.00 0.00 963,873.10 298,582.40 170,471.92 85,235.96 85,235.96

921,068.56

79,044.53

67,080.01

1,706,719.34 -

ACTUAL and ESTIMATED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE FOR CURRENT YEAR Barangay: Barangay ABC City/Municipality: City of DEF

BBPF3

Part A. Income Beginning Balance Share on Internal Revenue Collections Share on Real Property Tax Business Taxes (Stores & Retailers) Shares on Sand & Gravel Tax Share on National Wealth Share on EVAT Miscellaneous Taxes on Goods & Services Other Taxes Other Specific Income Subsidy from Other LGUs Total Available Resources Part B. Expenditures Program/Project/Activity Major Final Output

Actual

Estimate

TOTAL 0.00 1,493,168.00 201,807.34 10,000.00

2,000.00

1,706,975.34

Personal Services

Maintenance & Other Operating Expenses

Capital Outlay

Actual

Estimate

TOTAL

Agricultural Services 1.1 Establishment of Plant Nursery Daycare Services Health and Nutrition Services Peace & Order Services Administrative & Legislative Services Implementation of Development Projects (20% of IRA) Implementation of SK Projects (10% of SK Funds) Implementation of Projects/Activities for Unforseen Events (5% Calamity Fund) Other Services (5% GAD) Total Expenditures Balance/Deficit

25,200.00 78,120.00 817,748.56 79,198.11 67,080.00

25,200.00 78,120.00 0.00 964,026.67 298,633.60 170,497.53 85,248.77 85,248.77

921,068.56

79,198.11

67,080.00

1,706,975.34 0.00

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES FOR BUDGET YEAR Barangay: Barangay ABC City/Municipality: City of DEF

BBPF4

Part A. Income Beginning Balance Share on Internal Revenue Collections Share on Real Property Tax Business Taxes (Stores & Retailers) Shares on Sand & Gravel Tax Share on National Wealth Share on EVAT Miscellaneous Taxes on Goods & Services Other Taxes Other Specific Income Subsidy from Other LGUs Total Available Resources Part B. Expenditures Program/Project/Activity Major Final Output

TOTAL 0.00 1,620,159.00 201,807.34 20,000.00

2,000.00

1,843,966.34

Personal Services

Maintenance & Other Operating Expenses

Capital Outlay

TOTAL

Agricultural Services 1.1 Establishment of Plant Nursery Daycare Services Health and Nutrition Services Peace & Order Services Administrative & Legislative Services Implementation of Development Projects (20% of IRA) Implementation of SK Projects (10% of SK Funds) Implementation of Projects/Activities for Unforseen Events (5% Calamity Fund) Other Services Total Expenditures Balance/Deficit

89,899.00 32,964.00 864,419.74

88,083.43

75775.099

89,899.00 32,964.00 1,028,278.27 324,031.80 184,396.63 92,198.32 92,198.32

987,282.74

88,083.43

75,775.10

1,843,966.34 -

Expenditure program (cont.)

New

initiative: Improving Results-Orientation of Budget Process through Outcomes-Output Framework

Alignment of PPAs with objectives and strategies Specifying performance indicators and performance targets

Venue

for improving plan-budget link and role for use of CBMS data

Expenditure program (cont.) Example of a cursory review of proposed Development Fund (20% IRA) budget in the light of CBMS results

AIP Form No. 1 CY 2006 Annual Investment Plan to be funded out of the Development Fund (20% of IRA) Approved under Resolution No. 061 s2005 dated December Province: City/Barangay: Program/Projects/Activities Education program Solid Waste Management Program Health & Malnutrition Program Peace & Order Program Livelihood Program Support to Tourism Support to Womens Waterline (So. Nabutaan) Water & Power Development Cultural & Sport Dev't Support to Charter Anniv Barangay Road Maintenance Purchase of Welding Machine Communal Toilet - (So. Nabutaan) Total Brief Description Non-Formal Education Health & Sanitation Malnourished children Peace Maintenance Residence Livelihood Tourism Activity Women's Activity Water Improvement Water & Power Sport enhancement Charter day celebration Road Maintenance Equipment Maintenance Health & Sanitation Total 50,000.00 40,000.00 20,000.00 31,500.00 30,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 \a 15,031.80 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 42,500.00 \b 324,031.80

Some comments based on CBMS Results: \a Nabutaan should have low priority for water projects with only 5% of households not having access to safe water. Priority should be Pinongan with 95% of households without access to safe water) \b Nabutaan is among the top priority for toilet projects (96% without access to sanitary toilet) but San Ramon would even be in higher need with 97% without access to sanitary toilet

Observations Without the CBMS data, it would be difficult to argue for or against allocation of resources into specific PPAs in specific locations With CBMS data, one can argue with confidence even seemingly unpopular allocations

Expenditure program (cont.) Away from lump-sum allocation into evidenced-based budgeting How? In particular, how can CBMS data help?

Expenditure Program (cont.) Configuring PPA structure

For

each development problem, what PPAs to develop? Use frameworks with CBMS data for validation of what goods and/or services to deliver

Expenditure program (cont.)

After priority Program/Projects/ Activities (PPAs) are identified, budget the PPAs Budget=no. of clients x coverage x unit cost
No.

of clients is provided by CBMS data, e.g. number of malnourished children, no. of household without safe water supply, no. of households without sanitary toilet Coverage how many/much will be covered for the budget year- determined by financing capability Unit cost determined from administrative records

Expenditure Program (cont.) Determining unit costs

Cost

items types

Material Personnel Direct attributable directly and completely to PPAs allocate fully Shared resources used together other PPAs allocate a proportion

Cost

Computing

unit cost

Divide total cost by number of output units [e.g. number of beneficiaries (individuals, households, etc.)]

The budget workbook

Linked worksheets of income, expenditure and budget for AIP projects AIP projects

Unit

costing Beneficiary accounting by gender

Can automatically fill-up forms from Budget Operations Manual for Barangays (BOMB) (2006)

Template for AIP projects

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Title of Project: Financing Option Description A. Personnel Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

B. Material No. of beneficiaries Unit Cost Coverage for the budget year (%) C. Total D. Financing Development Fund External -

E. Unit cost computation

Total per unit F. Sex-disaggregation of beneficiaries Total Male Female Male/Female Ratio (Male per 100 Female)

#DIV/0!

Illustrative Examples
Evidenced-Based Alternative Allocation of Development Fund
Program Structure for 20% Devt Fund Amount of Development Fund 324,031.80

Projects Nutrition Program Sanitary toilet Education Program (Conditional Cash transfer) Livelihood (animal dispersal) Unallocated Total Sex-disaggregation of beneficiaries Total Male Female Male/Female Ratio (Male per 100 Female)

Budget Total 12,600 139,153 500,910 126,454

Dev't. Fund 12,600 69,576 100,182 126,454 15,219 308,812

External

Financing Options Remarks

0 69,576 Option 2 400,728 Option 3 0

50% LGU 20% LGU, 30% cov.

2,316 1,188 1,128 105

Illustrative examples
(Note: assumes no new personnel requirement)
Title of Project Financing Option Description A. Personel Sanitary toilet Option 1 100% LGU Option 2 50% LGU

B. Material No of households without sanitary toilet (CBMS 2006) Unit Cost Coverage for the budget year (over 3 years) C. Total D. Financing Development Fund External

835 500.00 33.33 139,153

835 250.00 33.33 69,576

139,153 0

69,576 69,576

E. Unit cost (per household) computation Cost of toilet bowl plus installation Information/Educ. campaign Total F. Sex-disaggregation of beneficiaries Total Male Female Male/Female Ratio (Male per 100 Female)

400 100 500

1,392 715 677 106

Illustrative examples
(Note: assumes no new personnel requirement)
Title of Project Financing Option Description A. Personnel Education Program (Conditional Cash transfer) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 100% LGU, 5% cov. 50% LGU, 10% cov. 20% LGU, 30% cov.

B. Material Number of children 6-12 not in school Unit cost Coverage for the budget year (%) C. Total D. Financing Development Fund External 281 5900 5 82,895.00 282 5900 10 166,380.00 283 5900 30 500,910.00

82,895.00 0

83,190.00 83,190.00

100,182.00 400,728.00

E. Unit cost (per child) computation Transportation Loss of income subsidy Information campaign Total per unit * 20 days per month for 10 months F. Sex-disaggregation of beneficiaries Total Male Female Male/Female Ratio (Male per 100 Female)

per school day 14 15

whole year * 2800 3000 100 5900

281 152 129 118

Illustrative examples
(Note: assumes no new personnel requirement)
Title of Project Financing Options Description A. Personnel Livelihood (animal dispersal) Option 1 100% LGU

B. Material Number of subsistence poor households Unit costs Coverage for the budget year C. Total D. Financing Development Fund External E. Unit cost computation Cost of animal * 70/30 cost sharing F. Sex-disaggregation of beneficiaries Total Male Female Male/Female Ratio (Male per 100 Female

542 700 * 33 126,454

126,454 0

1,000

903 464 439 106

Illustrative examples
(Note: assumes no new personnel requirement)
Title of Project: Financing Option Description A. Personnel Nutrition Program Option 1 100% LGU

B. Material No. of Malnourished Children (CBMS 2006) Unit Cost Coverage for the budget year (%) C. Total D. Financing Development Fund External F. Unit (per patient) cost computation Food (per day) Number of days / week Number of weeks Total per child G. Sex-disaggregation of beneficiaries Total Male Female Male/Female Ratio (Male per 100 Female) 7 1,800.00 100 12,600.00

12,600.00 0

30 5 12 1800

7 1 6 17

AIP Form No. 4

AIP Form No. 4 PRIORITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (20% OF IRA), BY ____________________ Barangay: Barangay ABC City/Municipality: City of DEF

TOTAL IRA for Barangay x 20% Priority Developmet Projects funded by the 20% of IRA Project Description (1) Nutrition Program Sanitary toilet Education Program (Conditional Cash transfer) Livelihood (animal dispersal) Unallocated

1,620,159 324,032 CUMULATIVE TOTAL (4) 12,600 82,176 182,358 308,812 324,032

RANK (2)

PROJECT COST (3) 12,600 69,576 100,182 126,454 15,219

AIP Form No. 5

AIP Form No. 5 PRIORITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, BY ________ To be Funded from External Sources Barangay: Barangay ABC City/Municipality: City of DEF

Project Description

(1)

RANK (2)

PROJECT COST (3) 0 69,576 400,728 0

CUMULATIVE TOTAL 0 69,576 470,304 470,304

Nutrition Program Sanitary toilet Education Program (Conditional Cash transfer) Livelihood (animal dispersal)

The budget workbook

The look and feel

Budget Authorization
Submission

of budget to sanggunian Deliberations on the budget

Can use CBMS data to support / review expenditure program

Passing

of appropriate budget legislation / ordinance by barangay sanggunian

Budget review

For barangays done by municipal/city sanggunian with assistance of Local Finance Committee (treasurer, budget officer, planning and development coordinator) Beyond compliance to statutory requirements (55% personnel, 20% DF, 10% SK, 5% Calamity, 5% GAD) Analysis of expenditure program if it agrees with priority development problems as revealed by CBMS results

Budget execution Responsibility of the local chief executive (LCE) Ensuring that budget is implemented in conformity with budget legislation Adapting budget to changes in economic environment (review of assumptions) Efficient and effective management of resources
Instituting

internal control system

Budget Accountability Recording, reporting and audit of income and expenditures and evaluation of physical and financial accomplishments versus targets Performance review
Semi-

a nnual (twice a year) performance review Comparison of physical and financial targets and accomplishments

Reporting to general public

Promote

transparency