Results-based National Evaluation Policy (Rbnep) Act

fire dit. TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES First Regular Session ) AUG -6 P1:37 SENATE RECEILED EY S. No. 1030 Introduced by Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY EXPLANATORY NOTE Equally important in the process of legislating and executing national policies is an examination of their effectiveness and an honest assessment whether their intended results are achieved or not. Such an evaluation identifies gaps in the implementation, and allows decision makers to learn and correct weaknesses in the interventions. It also ensures that government resources are allocated wisely and optimized by directing funds and other assets on strategies that actually work and on programs which are periodically refined and enhanced to address social ills. Over the years, there are laudable efforts to pursue an evaluation agenda. An example of which is the Joint Memorandum Circular issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) which acknowledged the need for an evaluation policy framework that would govern the practice of evaluation in the public sector. The NEDA-DBM JMC No. 2015-01, which covers all projects and programs implemented by the agencies of the government, including the state universities and colleges, government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial

institutions, has three-fold objectives: 1) support for evidence-based decisions; 2) ensure program improvement; and 3) ensure accountability. In addition, DBM also issued National Budget Circular No. 565 in 2016 on the adoption of a Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Policy (RBMER). The policy framework aims to "strengthen, streamline and standardize the RBMER system evidenced by a timely, useful, accurate and credible reporting of performance information in order to support policy and program improvement, expenditure management, and local and national decision making". This measure seeks to institutionalize via legislation a National Evaluation Policy (NEP) to promote evidence-based decision making in government, thereby promoting good governance, effective public resources management and transparency. It also seeks to ensure that the crafting and implementing of policies are aligned towards our long-term goals and aspirations as a nation, and in line with our commitments to international conventions. In view of the foregoing, immediate passage of this legislation is sought. SINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA

False of t TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) AUG -6 P1 :38 First Regular Session SENATE RECEIV D 21 S. No. 1030 Introduced by Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Results-Based

2 National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) Act".

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared a policy of the State to

ensure the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, and impact of laws, policies, strategies, and programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) of the government through the regular conduct and use of credible evaluations of its interventions to 7 achieve its inclusive development and poverty reduction goals.

Sec. 3. Policy Objectives. - The RBNEP intends to achieve the following

9 objectives: a) Facilitate the institutionalization of an integrated evaluation system of the government; b) Ensure the timely provision to government decision makers of credible and useful evaluations in support of results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government interventions; c) Ensure the systematic utilization of evaluation findings and recommendations for the continuous improvement of government interventions and optimum allocation of resources;

d) Promote greater transparency and accountability for results of government departments, agencies and other instrumentalities; and, e) Monitor the progress and assist in the achievement of long-term vision and aspirations of the nation as embodied in the AmBisyon Natin 2040 and the Philippine Development Plans (PDP), and in the meeting of the targets set by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. - The terms used in this Act are defined as

follows: a) Government Interventions - refer to the laws, policies, strategies, and programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) of the government departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities; b) Results - refer to changes in a state or condition due to a government intervention. There are three types of such changes - outputs, outcomes, and impacts - which can be intended or unintended, positive and/or negative; c) Evaluation - refers to the systematic, rigorous and impartial assessment of the results of government interventions. It provides credible information on the efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence, impact, and sustainability of government interventions, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-making process, d) Monitoring - refers to a continuous and systematic collection of data on key results indicators to track progress in achieving the objectives of government interventions; e) Outputs - refer to the goods and services delivered to the external stakeholders of government departments, agencies and other instrumentalities implementing government interventions; f) Outcomes - refer to the short-term and medium-term benefits to clients, beneficiaries and stakeholders, as a result of the outputs of government interventions; g) Impacts - are higher-level sectoral and societal benefits and other consequences of government interventions. Impacts take place long

after target individuals, groups, systems, or organizations have experienced the outputs and outcomes of government interventions.

Sec. 5. Coverage. - The RBNEP shall apply to the following:

a) All departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities of the national government, including state universities and colleges (SUCS), constitutional commissions, and government-owned and/or controlled corporations (GOCCs); and legislative and judicial branches of the government; b) All government interventions formulated and implemented by the above entities including those funded by Official Development Assistance (ODA) and those contracted to and executed by local government units (LGUs), private sector and civil society organizations.

Sec. 6. Guiding Principles for Evaluation. - The credibility, quality, and

usefulness of evaluation shall be ensured through adherence to the following principles: a) Utility - In commissioning or conducting an evaluation, there shall be a clear intention to use the evaluation findings and recommendations for results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government interventions. The design and timing of evaluations shall address the information needs of government decision-makers. b) Applying evaluation criteria - Evaluations shall assess and report on the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, impact and sustainability of government interventions in accordance with internationally accepted evaluation criteria. The use of these criteria shall be responsive to the needs of decision-makers, and to the purpose and context of evaluation. The following factors shall be assessed and measured: i. Alignment and consistency with national priorities and policies. ii. Responsiveness to stakeholder needs. MIl. Complementation with other programs and projects.

iv. Programmatic alternatives. V. Objectiveness achievement. vi. Unintended results. Efficient delivery of outputs. vili. Operations alternatives. IX. Timeliness. X. Continuation of intended results. Xi. Capacities needed to sustain the benefits over time. xii. Ultimate significance and transformative effects of the intervention. c) Observing evaluation standards. - Evaluation shall be consistent with internationally accepted evaluation norms, standards and best practices, including the use of evaluation designs and methodologies capable of attributing observed outputs, outcomes and impacts to government interventions being evaluated. Evaluation reference groups and other mechanisms shall be established and strengthened to ensure the generation of credible, quality and useful evaluations. d) Independence and Impartiality. - The independence of the evaluation units of departments, agencies and other instrumentalities shall be ensured at all times. Those who design, manage and conduct evaluations shall be shielded from any undue influence that will undermine the credibility of evaluations. They shall be provided with adequate resources to produce credible, high-quality and useful evaluations. Evaluation shall be conducted with the highest degree of impartiality. In case third-party evaluators are commissioned to ensure impartial evaluation, they shall be selected from a wide and diversified pool according to objective criteria. e) Evaluation Competencies. - Evaluations shall be conducted by organizations and individuals having the required knowledge, skills, and other evaluation competencies. Capacity-building initiatives shall be implemented to strengthen the evaluation competencies of organizations and individuals who commission, design, manage,

conduct, communicate and use evaluations. Subject matter experts, professionals with technical and multi-disciplinary proficiency, and individuals with relevant knowledge and experience may be consulted and sought for their insights and recommendations. f) Ethics. - Individuals and organizations who commission, manage, design and conduct evaluations shall observe accepted ethical standards including integrity, fairness, gender sensitivity, respect for culture and beliefs, and protection of the rights of evaluation participants. g) Human rights and gender equality. - Evaluations should protect, promote, and uphold the universally-recognized values and principles of human rights, and address issues involving gender, inequalities, underrepresented groups and marginalized sector. Each evaluation goal, methodology, finding, and recommendation should embrace and reinforce the "no one left behind" principle. h) Transparency. - The implementation of RBNEP shall promote transparency crucial to ensuring credible, high-quality and useful evaluations. To the greatest extent possible, all information required for evaluation shall be made available to evaluators, subject to existing laws and regulations governing the confidentiality and nondisclosure of information. Those who commission or manage evaluation shall ensure the selection of evaluators with no conflict of interest with the evaluation to be undertaken. Potential evaluators of government interventions shall disclose possible conflict of interest that may undermine the credibility of evaluation. They shall disclose the identities of the members of the evaluation team. Evaluators shall disclose to government decision-makers and other stakeholders the purpose, design, implementation, results, and utilization, including possible constraints or limitations of an evaluation. Complete evaluation reports shall be made easily accessible to government decision- makers, relevant stakeholders, and the public.

1) Accountability. - Entities responsible for the commissioning, managing and conducting evaluations shall ensure that evaluations are credible, quality, useful and timely. Key findings and recommendations of completed evaluations shall be communicated clearly by the same entities to government decision-makers and other stakeholders. The covered entities of the RBNEP shall incorporate the use of evaluations in results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government interventions.

Sec. 7. Establishment of a National Evaluation Council. - A National

10 Evaluation Council (NEC) is hereby established to oversee the implementation of the 11 RBNEP.

Sec. 8. Composition of the National Evaluation Council. - The NEC shall have

13 the following seven (7) voting members: a) Secretary of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), or his/her authorized representative, as Chairperson. The representative of the NEDA Secretary shall be an Undersecretary in charge of monitoring and evaluation in NEDA; b) Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), or his/her authorized representative, as Co-Chairperson. The representative of the DBM Secretary shall at least be an Assistant Secretary in charge of monitoring and evaluation in the DBM; c) Secretary of the Philippine Senate or his/her representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, research and/or evaluation in the Senate; d) Secretary General of the House of Representatives or his/her duly authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, research and/or evaluation in the House of Representatives; e) Court Administrator of the Supreme Court or his/her authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning and/or performance monitoring and evaluation;

f) Chairperson of the Commission on Audit (COA) or his/her authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and, g) Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) or his/her authorized representative. The representative of the DILG Secretary shall at least be an Assistant Secretary in charge of monitoring and evaluation in the DILG. The NEC shall meet at least once every quarter or as often as necessary. To ensure that the NEC is guided by inputs of evaluation experts, the following shall 10 attend the NEC meetings as non-voting members: a) The head of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) or his/her duly authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; b) The head of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) or his/her duly authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; c) Head of the Presidential Management Staff or his/her authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and d) Representative from the voluntary organizations for professional evaluation (VOPES).

Sec. 9. Functions of the National Evaluation Council. - The NEC shall perform

the following functions to operationalize the RBNEP: a) Provide overall policy direction on the implementation of the RBNEP; b) Approve the basic guidelines for the conduct of evaluation; c) Review and approve the National Evaluation Strategy (NES) and ensure its implementation; d) Review, approve and ensure the implementation of the costed evaluation agenda of covered entities;

e) Provide oversight on the conduct of evaluation by covered entities and their management response to evaluation recommendations; f) Issue the basic guidelines on the formation and operation of IEUs of covered entities; and, g) Approve and implement a program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of IEUs and government decision-makers.

Sec. 10. NEC Secretariat and its Functions. - The NEC Secretariat shall be

established within the NEDA. The existing staffing complement of the NEDA shall be augmented and professionalized to undertake the functions of the NEC Secretariat. 10 The NEC Secretariat shall: a) Formulate and recommend basic guidelines for the conduct of evaluation; b) Prepare the National Evaluation Strategy; c) Review and make recommendations on the costed evaluation agenda of covered entities; d) Monitor the implementation of entities' evaluation agenda and their management response to evaluation recommendation in support of the oversight function of the NEC; e) Formulate the basic guidelines on the formation and operation of IEUs of entities covered; f) Provide quality assurance of evaluations conducted by covered entities; g) Facilitate the dissemination to decision-makers of key findings, lessons learned, and recommendations from completed evaluations; h) Maintain a public website containing the evaluation plans and reports of covered entities; i) Develop a program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of covered entities and government decision makers; j) Provide recommendations and guidelines to the higher educational institutions (HEls) and the academic sector on the development of courses, curriculum and degrees related to evaluation and monitoring; k) Prepare and submit to the DBM the annual funding requirement of the program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of the government; and

1) Carry out other directives of the NEC, as necessary.

Sec. 11. National Evaluation Strategy. - The National Evaluation Strategy

3 (NES) shall identify the priority areas for evaluation in line with the Philippine Development Plan. It shall guide the formulation of evaluation agenda of the 5 covered entities.

Sec. 12. Organization of Independent Evaluation Units (IEUs) of Covered

Entities. - Each covered entity shall organize an IEU that shall report directly to the head of the entity. The head of the entity shall ensure that the IEU can perform its 9 evaluation functions independently and objectively.

Sec. 13. Functions of the IEUs. - The IEUs shall:

a) Coordinate the formulation and approval of the costed evaluation agenda of the covered entity; b) Manage or conduct evaluations identified in the costed evaluation agenda; c) Submit evaluation plans and final evaluation reports to the entity's head and to the NEC Secretariat in accordance with prescribed guidelines; d) Disseminate the key findings and recommendations of completed evaluations to the head of the entity, decision-makers and other stakeholders; e) Facilitate the formulation of the management response to key findings and recommendations from the completed evaluations; f) Monitor the entity's progress in implementing the management response; g) Establish quality assurance and participatory mechanisms for evaluation; and, h) Provide inputs to results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, and implementation within the entity.

Sec. 14. Formulation of the Costed Evaluation Agenda. - Each covered entity

shall formulate a six-year costed evaluation agenda aligned with the NES. The head of entity shall submit the costed evaluation agenda to the NEC.

Sec. 15. Utilization of Evaluation Findings and Recommendations. - The head

2 of a covered entity shall incorporate the use of evaluations in results-based 3 formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government interventions. He or she shall submit to the NEC the management response to 5 evaluation recommendations, and ensure its implementation.

Sec. 16. Transparency and Dissemination of Evaluation Findings. - Evaluation

7 findings and recommendations, along with the methodologies and frameworks 8 employed in the conduct of the evaluation, shall be published in the official website 9 of the concerned government instrumentality and shall be made available to the 10 general public.

Sec. 17. Funding for the Implementation of the RBNEP. - The funding

requirement for the implementation of the RBNEP, including the budget for the conduct of evaluation indicated in the costed evaluation agenda, NEC Secretariat, and IEUs shall be included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

Sec. 18. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The NEDA, in consultation

with the prospective members of NEC, shall promulgate the IRR to operationalize the 17 guiding principles of the RBNEP and to implement its specific provisions within sixty (60) days upon the approval of this Act.

Sec. 19. Amendment. - This Act shall be evaluated three (3) years after its

initial implementation. The results of such evaluation shall guide the proposed amendments of this Act and its IRR.

Sec. 20. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared invalid

or unconstitutional, the remaining provision not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.

Sec. 21. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders or regulations or part

thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 22. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following the

completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in a national newspaper of general circulation. Approved,