| dc.description.abstract | This study was conducted to assess the performance of selected Local Government Units in the Province of Iloilo for the Fiscal year 2003. It is aimed to describe the profile of Local Chief Executive (LCEs) in the Province of Iloilo. Furthermore the study aims to determine whether certain features of selected LGUs and sociodemographic characteristics of LCEs influence the performance of the LGU.
This study aims to describe the profile of the Local Chief Executives (LCE) and the selected features of Local Government Units (LGU) in the Province of Iloilo, Furthermore the study aims to determine whether certain characteristics of LCE and selected features of LGU influence their performance.
Specifically, this study aims to:
1. Describe the selected features of LGU such as number of barangays, population, income classification and distance from the city.
2. Describe the characteristics of LCE in terms of sex, age, civil status, educational attainment, political affiliation and length of public service or experience.
3. Determine the Performance of Local Government Units in terms of governance, administration, social services, economic development and environmental management.
4. Determine whether there is a significant variation or difference in the LGU performance when grouped according to number of barangays, population, income classification and distance from the city.
5. Determine whether there is a significant variation or difference in the Local Government Unit (LGU) performance when grouped according to sex, age, educational attainment, political affiliation and experience of Local Chief Executive (LCE).
Data Collection of the profile of the Local Government Units features like number of barangays, population, income classification, distance from the city were documentary review while questionnaires were prepared and distributed to gather Local Chief Executive’s characteristics such as age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, political affiliations and length of public service.
This descriptive study utilizes mainly quantitative approach with the use of survey questionnaire supplemented when needed by interviewers. Data were processed and analyzed using SPSS statistical software.
Mean, frequency distribution and percentage of data were determined for the first level of analysis and Z-test or ANOVA to describe the relationship between two means for the second level of analysis.
The data gathered for this study were coded and processed using the Statistical Package for Social Service (SPSS).
Major Findings
1. The majority of the LGUs in the Province of Iloilo have 41 or more barangays, a population of 20,001 to 40,000, and 4th class in classification. Most of them are within 40 kilometers from the City of Iloilo.
2. The majority of the Local Chief Executives (LCEs) were males, 50 years old or younger, and college-educated.
3. In terms of political affiliation, most of the LCEs belonged to the administration group and they have served the LGU for 10 years or more.
4. The 24 LGUs in the Province of Iloilo which were assessed, have high performance in all indicators specified such as governance, administration, social services, economic development, and environmental management. In all the indicators measured, they obtained the highest rating in social services.
5. No significant variations in the performance of LGUs was found when they were grouped according to number of barangays, population, income classification. However, a significant variation in performance a noted when the LGUs were grouped according to distance from Iloilo City. LGUs located within 40 km from Iloilo City performed better than those which are farther from the city.
6. There is no significant variation in the performance of LGUs when grouped according to sex, age, educational attainment, political affiliation and experience of their Local Chief Executives. The LGUs registered high performance rating regardless of their LCEs sex, age, educational attainment, political affiliations and length of service.
The records of the Department of Interior and Local Government show that local government units have purportedly achieved a high degree of performance in the areas of governance, administration, social services, economic development and environmental management.
Conclusion
Based on the aforementioned findings, the following conclusions are drawn:
The LGUs rated high in their overall performance and in their performance in the five indicators, namely; governance, administration, social services, economic development and environmental management during the FY 2003. In all the five indicators, their best performance is in the area of social services.
The LCEs of the LGUs in the Province of Iloilo -were male-dominated, young, CEs who were 50 years old or younger and below, belong to administration group and serve the government for more than 10 years. The majority of male LCEs may be due to the idea that Philippines is a patriarchal type of government.
Performance of LGUs did not vary when grouped according to number of barangays, population and income classification. It can be deduced that LGUs regardless of number of barangays, population and income classification registered high performance. This may be attributed to LCEs who are energetic, responsive and know how to maximize the use of all resources for the development of LGUs.
In contrast, performance of the LGUs varies significantly when grouped according to distance from Iloilo City. The nearer LGUs performed better that those who are farther. Thus, it can be concluded that distance of LGUs from Iloilo City, the center of activity has greatly affected the performance of LGUs.
Performance of LGUs does not vary when grouped according to sex, age, educational attainment, political affiliation and experience of their respective LCEs This suggest that the LGUs performance, is not significantly affected by sex, age, educational attainment political affiliation and length of service. To achieve an in depth review of the performance of the local chief executives, specifically to determine the quality of service to the needs of the local constituents, outcome monitoring is needed.
Outcome monitoring is a process that involves regularly collecting, reporting and reviewing information directly related to the results of a program. In human serviced, outcomes are not the level of input, the amount of work done, or any indicators of the outcomes of policy making or the number of clients seen but rather the number of clients helped that constitutes an outcome. The term includes aspects of the quality of services delivered, its timelines or even the courteousness with which perceived by the user. The primary purpose of using the outcome measurement information is to help improve programmes and services.
This is a new facet of service evaluation that should be developed hand in hand with performance evaluation.
The result of this evaluation is not supported by the actual situation. In terms of governance and administration, patronage politics or as derisively termed “trapo politics”, still domineers. Social services are rendered as dole-outs, designed to advance the political interest of the local chief executives and his party mates. Many local executives found environmental management, too technical, laborious, and without vote getting impact.
This perception is hared not only by the objective observers, but even by the constituents of the local government units concerned. The fact that to run for public office is unarguably very expensive and dedicated individuals already shun away from politics validates this observation. Recommendations
Performance evaluation should be conducted to measure relevance, effectiveness and impact of activities in the management of their objectives. The focus of the evaluation should be in the achievement of high quality of governance to produce desired results. Thus, it should be a learning and action-oriented tool, which should be an integral and continuous part of the basic management process along with planning and implementation.
Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are offered:
A. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
• Performance rating is one of the criteria to evaluate the capacity of LCEs in a specific area of LGUs. It is therefore recommended that performance evaluation of LGU’s should be done regularly, be accomplished as soon as possible and results should be feedback to their respective local government officials and section heads. Together, they should discuss the results for appropriate action.
Much work will be needed to design a performance measurement system for clustered offices. But it is the key to promote in each department of government a system in which managers at all levels have: (1) a clear view of their objectives and means to assess and, whenever possible, measure outputs in relation to predetermined objectives. (2) well defined responsibility for making the best use of their resources, including scrutiny of output and value for money.
• A common or coordinated performance evaluation instrument should be designed, administered, and results should analyze, interpreted, and reported by an independent body composed of representatives from Commission on Audit (COA), Civil Service Commission (CSC and Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) in a provincial level to maintain objectivity.
After resources of data is agreed upon, each office or agency must design its own measurement system. Performance measures should match the policy objectives, targets and activities for which specified managers have been given clear areas of responsibility.
• Officers and officials need to be assured that they are accomplishing their objectives, that they are making progress. And if not, they need to know how far from the target they are. When they are on target, still we have to measure the extent of success, if we are able to make performance an important basis in out reward system. Measuring performance therefore, is basic to any attempt at result -oriented management, not only for controllers and stewards but also for planners, budgeters, legislators and evaluators.
• Distinction has to be made between performance measures and performance indicators. Where economy, efficiency and effectiveness can be measured precisely and unambiguously, they are performance measures. When a precise measure cannot be made, they are referred to as performance indicators. Indicators are provocative and suggestive.
• Results of the evaluation should be made public so, “PEOPLE MAY KNOW,” including the LCE’s, in order that improvement could be made or non- performing LCEs xviii do not get re-elected (hopefully). Various media should be tapped to disseminate the results of the evaluation.
• Performance measures include; policy - to assist in the formulation and implementation of policy; planning and budgeting - to assist in the planning and budgeting of service supervision and to monitor the implementation of planned change; quality - to improve the standards of service content and of organizational effectiveness; economy - to review the distribution and effective use of resources; equity - to ensure fair distribution and accessibility to users; and accountability - to increase control and influence over decision making.
• Ultimately, there should be performance standards. But this should be for much later, when performance can already be measured with some degree of reliability and validity. Performance of offices and officials cannot just be measured with a hazy and uncertain rod when one is assigned performance goals, otherwise, he will experience a sense of justice, a feeling of intense dissatisfaction and of being treated fairly. Then too, there will always be resistance to change, the worst of which will come from the individuals within the organization, the enemies within.
The test of a manager and of his organization is not his intelligence. The test of an organization is not size; it is not harmony; it is not busyness. The test of an effective manager and of an effective organization is performance.
B. SYSTEM FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
• The system for evaluating the performance of specific programs and projects is not firmly established both at macro and agency levels. There are duplications among agencies performing program and project monitoring and evaluation, particularly the xix Presidential Management Staff, National Economic and Development Authority, Department of Budget and Management, Coordinating Committee for the Philippine Assistance Program, and the various department. There is little operational coordination among these agencies to achieve complementarity of efforts. This lack of coordination duplicates agency reporting configurations of the same reports are required separately by these monitoring agencies.
It is necessary that a system of measuring performance agreed upon by DILG, COA, CSC should be crafted, presented to and accepted by the users and subject agencies, otherwise the whole exercise will be futile. When it is difficult to measure performance directly, evaluation of the degree of attainment is another way to judge performance.
C. SANCTIONS
• It is further recommended that COA, CSC, and the DILG should see to it that all the evaluation findings and recommendations are acted upon by the LCE/LGU. Sanctions should be made in case of non-compliance or repeated violations of laws, rules and guidelines. “Leadership by example” is encouraged.
• To improve more of performance of LGUs it is also recommended that LCE consultations should be made with the general body or representative LGU level to identify and prioritize existing community problems. Identification of solutions and community participation is encouraged.
• And lastly it is recommended that an entrepreneurial government is needed at this present scenario to encourage more developments in the program of LGU.
The Principles of Entrepreneurial Governance - Reinventing Government
1. Catalytic Government: Steering Rather Than Rowing
2. Community-Owned Government: Empowering Rather than Serving.
3. Competitive Government: Injecting Competition into Service Delivery
4. Mission-Driven Government: Transforming Rule-Driven Organization
5. Results-Oriented Government: Funding Outcomes, Not Inputs
6. Costumer-Driven Government: Meeting Costumers’ Needs Not Bureaucracy
7. Enterprising Government: Earning Rather than Spending
8. Anticipatory Government: Prevention Rather Than Cure
9. Decentralized Government: From Hierarchy to Participation/Teamwork
10. Market-Oriented: Leveraging Change Through Market
Generalization One: Crystallization
These spread out delivery of services to other sectors, which traditionally was concentrated in the government organizations. An instance of a way out is privatization. The traditional way of service - delivery has become obsolete and inadequate in the face of the ever increasing complexity of needs of societies and increase of publics to be served. The government should dichotomize the functions of making policy decisions on the provision of needed service “Steering” as against the function of actual service delivery or “Rowing”. They also spoke of the coming out of the “third sector’ which are the privately owned or controlled organizations but exist to meet public or social need. (ex. Red Cross, NGOs)
Generalization Two: Empowerment
The motive behind the empowerment of communities towards deciding and participating in the service-delivery of government programs is to transfer service delivery programs from the government and making this a community responsibility. The traditional way of service-delivery had made individuals and communities dependent and passive. Now, they can participate in firefighting, garbage collection, police work, among others. Communities are empowered to act as pressure groups to counter the powerful vested interest pressure groups and force government to listen public demands. By their monitoring of public services, by acting as watchdogs, through their councils and through individual citizens, communities can force agencies to respond or to demand of quality service. The involvement of communities in the delivery of services has resulted in a decentralized form of government.
Generalization Three: Institutionalization
A competitive government will men that government promotes competition in the service-delivery among the private sector and among the public sector organizations; also, the government competes with the private sector. Ultimately this improves the quality of services delivered to the communities. This competitive delivery of services eventually brings about changes and improvement in products and services through the leverages of market forces. Generalization Four: Transformation
To transform a rule-driven government into one that is mission-driven is by means of forcing bureaucracies towards creating organizational cultures focused on the realization of their missions, not on the rules. To do this, there must be evolved a bureaucracy oriented to serving clients who are now to be treated as costumers and consumers of public goods and services, as well as consider outcomes and results. Unlike private organizations, which determine their products on the basis of demands of the market to please their costumers, public agencies respond by programs that aim to please their executives and their legislatures because that is where they get their funding. While business strives to please costumers, public agencies strive to please pressure groups of all sorts.
Generalization Five: Fulfillment
The traditional expense-oriented government is transformed into an income generating government. The system of government procedures on budgeting, accounting and auditing has generated a culture of spending. Osborne and Gaebler recommend a liberalization of the budgetary policies to allow income generated from operations to be plowed back to the agency to which occasioned them. This will serve a incentives to encourage more meaningful programs without having to request for new appropriations and to instill consciousness of making money instead of spending it. The authors continue stating that perhaps it is this concept that provides the foundations for our traditional bureaucracies to be transformed into “enterprise bureaucracies.” | en_US |
