The KALAHI-CIDSS Project Impact on Impoverished Communities

1. The KALAHI-CIDSS ProjectImpact on Impoverished Communities

2. KAPIT-BISIG LABAN SA KAHIRAPAN Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services • A Poverty Reduction project of the GOP • Begun in 2003 • Aims to reduce widespread poverty through: • Empowerment of citizens and, • Promoting good local governance

3. What is KALAHI-CIDSS? • A way of doing things • Way/process of community participationin local prioritization and allocation of public resources, planning and implementation of dev’t activities (=CDD) • Transparency, access to info: community reporting and announcement of info, KC grievance redress system designed for access of citizens in the bgys and general public • Participation in BA meetings/inter-bgy forum • Inclusivenessin making decisions

4. Target Communities • Common Features of the Targetted Communities • Poverty Incidence =

5. Why CDD? CDD. . . Improves targeting of poorer areas Delivers good quality and cost-effective infrastructure and public services with high rates of economic return Increases community involvement in decision- making and implementation Helps to improve operation and maintenance of infrastructure Increases income of participating community members [1] Source: World Bank, 2005, “The Effectiveness of World Bank Support for Community-Based and -Driven Development -- An OED Study”

6. Where are we?

7. Funding Partners of KC Other Funders WB loan to GOP MCC/US grant KC-MCC/ MCA-P 120 m USD • AusAid • Spanish Govt • Japanese Embassy • Others • KC-1 • 100 m USD • KC Add’l Financing • 59 m USD

8. Outputs of KC-1 PhP 5.93 Bil. 5,876 community sub-projects implemented In 4,583 barangays in 200 municipalities in the 42 poorest provinces and municipalities in the country

9. DUMPTRUCKS PUMPBOATS CORNMILL Community-Implemented Priorities Funded by KC HEALTH CENTER ROAD BRIDGE WATER SYSTEM SCHOOL BUILDING DRAINAGE ELECTRIFICATION TRIBAL HOUSING WARF DAY CARE CENTER

10. Top 7 Sub-Projects (by type)

11. A. Facilitated Process

12. Results (2010 Impact Evaluation) SOCIAL CAPITAL & GOVERNANCE WELFARE • Household Consumption & non-food expenditures • Household Group Membership • Intra-barangay trust • Participation in Barangay Assemblies • Employment rates, particularly for women • Marketing of livestock and produce • Year Round Access to basic services (except for primary education?)

13. Cost-Effectiveness • Average of 21% EIRR for sub-project investments • Unit costs 8-76% lower than similar public works • 90% of investments found to be technically sound, operationally and financially sustained after 6 months of operations • Investment of PhP783 per person-beneficiary for 3 block grant cycles

14. Our view of Poverty A condition of DEPRIVATION, where poor people are denied… Participation in decision-making Opportunities and access to basic services Ownership of assets to allow sustained income Resources to meet basic needs

15. The KALAHI-CIDSS Poverty Equation P O V E R T Y DISEMPOWERMENT -lack of voice; -lack of agency to express demand; BAD GOVERNANCE -Patronage politics; -Corruption; -Sub-optimal resource use;

16. The Governance – Poverty Link • Poor are not consulted • Resources don’t get to the poor, already scarce public resources are misused • Interventions do not respond to needs of the poor • Little meaningful government-citizen engagement exist • Result: Poverty reduction efforts are undermined • Challenge: How to improve effectiveness of poverty reduction efforts with government?

17. What’s The Solution? • Process for systematic consultation • Respond to identified priorities • Checks and balances (with penalties) • Develop capacities • Access to information • Monitor and evaluate • Empower poor communities to drive the process • COMMUNITY-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT

18. How KALAHI-CIDSS does it • Making resources targeted • Facilitating community engagement using proven tools to mobilize and support communities to get involved • Making resource use demand-driven  Open project menu based on informed choice through • Making PIME accessible, and popular  PSA, prioritization, procurement, finance, community-based monitoring • Design systems and processes that communities can use  village assemblies, community volunteer committees, direct fund transfers, grievance redress • Building capacity  community (demand-side) and local government (supply-side)

19. Ingredients for meaningful Government-Citizen Engagement • On the part of government • Institutional change: from “traditional” to “innovative” • Internal change management process • Decentralized decision making • Develop non-traditional skills (dialogue, partnership vs contracting, etc.) • Flexibility, become “nimble” (local and contextual) • On the part of citizens and communities • Practice active citizenship: participate – actively! • Skills to manage program preparation and implementation (technical, financial, managerial)

20. What can CDD Achieve? • Facilitate claim-making for the poor • Local governments more responsive to needs of the poor • Complement broader public sector reform initiatives at decentralization, local planning and budgeting, with the potential to harmonize community-oriented approaches

21. Thank you