Results-based National Evaluation Policy (Rbnep) Act

Senate Offier of tie Sceretarp TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE ) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FEB -2, A11:07 First Regular Session SENATE RECEIVED BY: S.B. No. 1732 Introduced by SENATOR IMEE R. MARCOS AN ACT ESTABLISHING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY (RBNEP) EXPLANATORY NOTE The whole-of-government regularly designs and implements multi-year programs/projects and undertakes activities, oftentimes huge in scale, using funds from the national budget, domestic and foreign loans, grants and donations. As programs and projects, these are time-bound, they follow a life cycle where activities undertaken should lead to desired objectives and results within the life of the project or program. However, much remains to be improved with government programs/projects which have been usually marked with extensions, cost overruns, outputs, and outcomes that do not fit the desired objectives. Regular monitoring and evaluation (M&E), a critical activity within the life of a project or program, which aims to monitor progress of implementation, identify problems encountered, and ensure that the project or program is on track is hardly undertaken. The M&E of these endeavors has not been efficient enough to ensure that intended results are achieved on a timely basis within the costs allocated. This Bill aims to institutionalize and legalize a National Evaluation Policy that is interlinked with Results- Based Management (RBM) approaches and builds upon current

and future integrated M&E systems. This Results-Based National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) is aimed to apply to all branches of government, i.e. Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. Thus, the purpose of RBNEP is to harness the enormous potential of evaluations as important means for alleviating poverty and improving the lives of all Filipinos by ensuring that public policies, strategies, programs and projects are informed by sound evidence and lead to effective and equitable results. The RBNEP builds upon previous Executive Orders (EOs), Administrative Orders (AOs), and Memorandum Circulars (MCs) related to various M&E and performance management frameworks including: a) EO 376 (1989) establishing the Regional Project M&E System (RPMES); b) AO 25 (2011) setting up the Results-Based Performance Management System (RBPMS); c) Circulars from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) establishing the Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF); d) National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)/DBM Joint Memo Circular 2015 (dated July 2015) establishing the National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF); and e) NEDA/DBM Joint Memo Circular No. 2020-01 (dated Jan. 2020): Guidelines on the Initial Implementation of the NEPF in the National Government. NEDA and DBM, through their Joint Memo Circulars (2015 and 2020) developed the NEPF to provide a system for the conduct of evaluations of programs and projects being implemented by government departments and agencies in support of good governance, transparency, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making. The NEPF Circular covered all agencies - State Universities and Colleges (SUCS), Government-Owned and/or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs), Government Financial Institutions (GFIs) with budgetary support from the National Government, and other instrumentalities of the national government. The scope of the NEPF included all projects and programs being implemented by the above-mentioned entities supported by local and foreign funds.

However, the NEDA/DBM NEPF Circular applies only to the agencies of the Executive Branch and does not cover the Legislative and Judicial branches of government. And like other Executive Circulars, the establishment and operationalization of the NEPF is not institutionalized through a legal mandate and is thus subject to uncertainty especially when there is a change in priorities of a new government administration. International agencies and development partners have encouraged developing countries to institutionalize their respective evaluation policies starting with the development of local evaluation capacities and dissemination of documents related to internationally accepted evaluation norms, policies, quality standards and good practices. Notable among these evaluation agencies and organizations are the: a) OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC); b) United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG); c) World Bank Independent Evaluation Group (IEG); and the d) Asian Development Bank Independent Evaluation Department (IED). Thus, we have an array of experiences gained and lessons learned about evaluation to build upon. But we need to do more to exploit further the full potential of evaluations to improve living conditions of Filipinos through better results from policies, strategies, programs and projects. In view of the foregoing, the approval of this bill is earnestly sought. INEER MARCOS

Senate Office of the Suretarp TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE ) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES First Regular Session SENATE S.B. No. _ 1732 RECEIVED BY: Introduced by SENATOR IMEE R. MARCOS AN ACT ESTABLISHING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY (RBNEP) 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 National

Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) Act."

Sec. 2. Policy Objectives. - The RBNEP intends to achieve the following specific

objectives: a) Facilitate the development and strengthening of an integrated M&E system of the national government to ensure the systematic collection of useful data and credible information on specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound performance indicators that enable the assessment and reporting of the progress made, the achievement of objectives and the overall improvement of the performance of departments, agencies and other government instrumentalities; b) Validate the results, i.e. output, outcome, and impact and assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact of a policy, strategy, program, project and other development interventions; Ensure the timely provision to government policymakers, managers and other stakeholders of transparent, impartial, independent and useful evidence- based information and knowledge to strengthen the policymaking and decision-making processes; d) Ensure the utilization, dissemination and feedback of evaluation findings, recommendations and lessons learned for the continuous improvement of the design, planning, programming, budgeting and implementation of public policies, strategies, programs, and projects; e) Ensure the accountability to stakeholders and taxpayers by government departments, agencies and various instrumentalities for public expenditures and the delivery of development results.

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

a) Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial assessment or review of a completed or ongoing development Intervention, i.e. policy, strategy, program or project, its design, implementation and results. It aims to determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. An evaluation should provide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision- making process. Evaluation should not be confused with implementation monitoring and reporting, audit, inspection, investigation or assessment of individual performance. Evaluation and monitoring are two separate functions that fulfill different purposes and cannot be treated almost as if they were synonyms; b) Monitoring refers to the systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide internal management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention such as a project or program with indications of the progress made in Implementing activities towards Intended results. The main purpose of monitoring is to enable project management to keep track of what is happening and to check that progress is being made towards the achievement of objectives. More effective monitoring could prevent projects and programs from falling. Systematic monitoring, based on a monitoring framework, is of great importance for evaluations, as it provides a significant part of the data on which evaluation is based. Monitoring should be linked directly to project management on a regular basis as the function provides key Information useful for management; c) Results comprise of the outputs, outcomes and impacts of policies, strategies, programs, or projects being implemented or completed; d) Outputs refer to the specific goods and services produced by budgeted and department, agency or government instrumentality is mandated to deliver to external clients through the Implementation of the National Expenditure e) Outcomes refer to the actual finite and measurable changes in the behavior of target individuals, groups, or organizations and/or improvements in systems, the quality of processes and services as an immediate effect of specific interventions. Refer more specifically to Organizational Outcomes and Sector Outcomes. Organizational Outcomes are the short- to medium-term benefits to the clients and community as a result of delivering MOs. Sector Outcomes are the longer-term benefits for the sector from initiatives of the department/agency or government instrumentality; f) Impacts refer to the fundamental, broad sectoral and higher-level societal changes (both intended and unintended, positive or negative) that take place long after target Individuals, groups, systems or organizations have experienced the outputs and outcomes of specific Interventions. Refer more specifically to Societal Goals defined as the societal benefits sought from sector-based

economic activity or the intended desirable impacts of MFOs on society; 9) PAPs refer to the acronym for Programs, Activities and Projects. It shall pertain to the list of priority programs and projects that contribute to the societal goals, sector outcomes, organizational outcomes and outputs spelled out in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP). Programs are special undertakings by department/agency/instrumentality implemented within a definite period and intended to result in some pre- determined goods and services. Refer also to a group of similar projects. Projects are activities implemented within a specific period by a department/agency/instrumentality to achieve the purpose for which it is established or created or to deliver its MFOs; h) Results-Based Management System (RBMS) refers to a management strategy that focuses on performance and the achievement of results, i.e. outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Refers specifically to Results Based Performance Management (RBPMS) as established under AO No.5 series of 2011. RBPMS serves as the single performance management system for the whole of the Executive Branch in place of the multiple and disparate performance management systems that were currently being implemented. It consists of a set of comprehensive performance indicators that cut across societal and sectoral performance, down to organizational and individual performance. The logical framework (logframe), the Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) and the Results Matrix (RM) are the underlying frameworks for the. RBPMS, which will be used by all government agencies mandated to exercise broad oversight over the performance of all agencies in the government; Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) refers to a strategic budgeting management framework. An approach to expenditure management or budgeting that directs resources for major final outputs (MOs) toward results and measures performance by key quality, quantity, timeliness, and cost indicators; Logical Framework (or Logframe) refers to a management tool used to Improve the design and planning of development Interventions, most often at the project level. It involves identifying strategic elements (inputs, outputs, outcomes or effects, and impact or goal) and their causal relationships (also called results chain), performance indicators, monitoring sources, and the assumptions or risks that may influence success and failure. The logframe thus facilitates planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of a development intervention. Results Chain: The causal sequence for a development intervention that stipulates the necessary sequence to achieve desired objectives beginning with inputs, moving through activities and outputs, and culminating in outcomes, impacts, and feedback; k) Results Framework refers to a management tool that illustrates how the results statements at the PDP level (sector and sub-sector outcomes) will link to the OPIF logframes (outputs and organizational outcomes) at the organizational level. OPIF Agency Logical Framework (OPIF logframe): a planning and budgeting tool used to establish the link of MFOs that department/agency delivers or produces through the implementation of PAPs to the sector outcomes and societal goals it seeks to influence.

As part of the results framework, it shows the focus of resource allocation, spending, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of results based on a set of performance indicators; and Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES), as established through EO 376 (dated Nov. 1989, refers to a scheme for monitoring and evaluating projects at the national, regional, provincial/city and municipal levels, with the extensive and active participation of various government agencies, local government units (LCDs) and nongovernment organizations (NGOs). The RPMES primarily aims to facilitate project implementation, and devolve project facilitation, problem-solving, monitoring and evaluation to the regional, provincial/city and municipal levels.

Sec. 4. Coverage. - The RBNEP shall apply to the following: a) departments, agencies,

state universities and colleges (SUCs), government-owned and/or controlled corporations (GOCCS), government financial institutions and other instrumentalities of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the National Government; and b) all public policies, strategies, programs, projects, and other development interventions formulated and implemented by the above entities and funded by local and foreign funds including those contracted to and executed, produced and delivered by private sector and civil society organizations.

Sec. 5. Evaluation Principles. - The credibility, quality and usefulness of evaluations

will be ensured through adherence to the following core principles: a) Adherence to international good practice and evaluation standards. The national evaluation policy will be consistent with internationally accepted evaluation norms, standards and good practices in the context of RBM approaches. b) Evaluation ethics. Ethical standards will apply to the managers of evaluations and individual evaluators. Organizations and persons engaged in evaluation activities shall abide by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act 2 No. 6713). c) Independence of evaluation process. There will be separation of evaluation management and implementation responsibility from line management functions for policies, strategies, programs and projects. Evaluators will be selected from a wide and diversified pool according to agreed criteria. Evaluation reports will provide critical assessment and an independent perspective, be informative, and recommend actionable follow-up. d) Ensuring professionalism in the conduct and management of evaluation.

Evaluations will be undertaken by qualified technical experts and evaluators with the needed knowledge, skills and abilities in evaluation as well as expertise and relevant experience on the subject area they are evaluating. Evaluators will adhere to the highest technical standards, and respond to all criteria of professionalism, including the responsible handling of confidential information. e) Transparency of evaluation process. Evaluations will be conducted using a transparent process involving stakeholders to ensure factual accuracy and full ownership. Evaluation findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned will be disseminated to constituents. Congress and other oversight agencies and partners concerned, to inform decision-making and support organization learning.

Sec. 6. Evaluation Criteria. - In all evaluations, however, the evaluation criteria

must be applied in an unambiguous and, above all, transparent way. Evaluation criteria refer to different result levels founded on the logical framework or result chains. At the minimum, evaluations of national government policies, strategies, programs, and projects shall assess and report on the following five (5) internationally accepted set of criteria, namely: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, impact and sustainability.

Sec. 7. Creation of National Evaluation Council (NEC). - A National Evaluation

Council (NEC) is hereby established as the lead agency for the full development and operationalization of the RBNEP. The membership of the NEC shall ensure adequate representation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government. The NEC shall also ensure that sufficient participation of experts and other stakeholders from the academe, private sector and civil society are taken into consideration in its decisions. Its organizational and staffing pattern shall be in accordance with existing Department of Budget and Management (DBM) policies, rules and regulations.

Sec. 8. Composition of NEC. - The NEC shall have eight (8) voting members which

shall consist of the following: a) A career Undersecretary of the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) in charge of monitoring and evaluation to be appointed by the DEPDev Secretary and Director General as his/her official representative to the NEC; b) A career Undersecretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in charge of government performance reporting, monitoring and evaluation and/or improvement as Co-Chairperson, to be appointed by the DBM Secretary as his/her official representative; c) The head of the Presidential Management Staff (PMS) or his/her official representative; d) A career Deputy Secretary General/ Director General in charge of policy planning, research and/or evaluation in the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the House Speaker as his/her official representative; e) A career Deputy Secretary General/ Director General in charge of policy

planning, research and/or evaluation In the Philippine Senate, to be appointed by the Senate President; f) A Deputy Court Administrator in charge of performance monitoring and evaluation of the judicial branch, to be appointed by the Court Administrator as his/her official representative; g) A Commissioner of the Commission on Audit (COA) to be appointed by the COA Chairperson as his/her official representative; and h) The head of the Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA) or his/her official representative.

Sec. 9. Functions of the NEC. - The NEC shall perform the following functions to

operationalize the RBNEP: a) Provide overall policy direction and coordination on the implementation of the Results-Based National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP), Including its agenda, plans and strategies in all branches of the government; b) Develop the basic guidelines for the systematic, impartial and credible evaluations of national policies, strategies, programs and projects. Knowledge management and learning from evaluation; C) Serve as the national government's repository for ME reports; d) Review the evaluation reports to ensure these meet international standards and good practices; e) Disseminate the findings, recommendations and lessons learned from evaluations for use in decision making by government policy makers and managers of programs and projects in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government; • Develop and strengthen institutional capacities for evaluation so that a critical number of institutions are able to promote and facilitate quality evaluations; g) Build individual capacities for evaluation by organizing and conducting evaluation training courses for evaluators, managers, and users of evaluation; h) Strengthen the enabling environment for evaluation by ensuring that all government departments, agencies and instrumentalities understand and appreciate the value of evaluation; Facilitate or manage the conduct of high-level evaluations (policy and strategy) and special evaluation studies, on top of those independent evaluations conducted by departments, agencies and instrumentalities; j) Prepare the annual National Evaluation Report for submission to Congress, Economy and Development Council, oversight agencies and other government agencies and instrumentalities. k) Facilitate the development of national and regional M&E professional associations; and I) Work for the development and eventual recognition of evaluation as a profession. The RBNEP NEC shall meet every quarter or as often as necessary. It may authorize the creation of technical committees, advisory bodies and other mechanisms to ensure high-quality evaluations.

Sec. 10. Creation of NEC Secretariat and its Functions. - In the interim, the

Monitoring and Evaluation Staff of the DEPDev shall serve as the NEC Secretariat. Within six (6) months after the enactment of this policy, the NEC Secretariat shall be formally organized to provide technical, managerial and administrative support to the NEC. The NEC Secretariat shall be headed by an Executive Director. Subject to the approval of the NEC and to existing government laws and regulations on government organization, staffing, services and divisions as needed to effectively support the NEC's functions and responsibilities shall be created. The NEC Secretariat shall have the following functions: a) Recommend for the NEC's approval, evaluation policies, principles, standards, criteria, strategies and guidelines for the effective Implementation of the RBNEP; b) Recommend to the NEC the format and content of evaluation plans and reports; c) Monitor and report on progress and results of evaluation activities undertaken by the NEC and covered entities; d) Serve as a repository of all evaluation plans and reports of the national government and Its departments, agencies and Instrumentalities; e) Upload in its website within 15 days from completion all final evaluation reports for public policies, strategies, programs, and projects of the national government and its agencies and instrumentalities; f) Notify the key stakeholders of the national government within 15 days from completion about final evaluation plans and completed evaluations of public policies, programs, projects and services; g) Provide hard and soft copies of final evaluation reports to the following stakeholders of the Philippine Congress: the House Speaker; the Senate President; the concerned chairpersons and committee secretaries of congressional committees with jurisdictions over public policies, programs, projects and services being evaluated; and the support offices of the House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate performing budget and policy h) Prepare a consolidated report of individual evaluations, disseminate completed evaluation reports and gather management replies and feedback (to the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations); Conduct capacity-development activities on evaluation with partners from the government, private and civil society sectors and donors and development partners; Provide Secretariat support to the NEC; k) Recommend sanctions and incentives; and Prepare a consolidated report of individual evaluations for the NEC's appropriate action.

Sec. 11. National Evaluation Agenda (NEA). - All departments, agencies and

Instrumentalities of the national government from the executive, legislative and judicial branches shall formulate and maintain a continuously updated six-year evaluation agenda, to coincide with the timeframe of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and

Public Investment Program (PIP). The evaluation agenda shall specify public policies, strategies, programs, projects and services to be subjected to impact, thematic, project or self-evaluations and their timelines. The NEC, with the assistance of its Secretariat, shall review the six-year evaluation agenda of national government agencies and instrumentalities to identify high- priority evaluations for integration in the National Evaluation Agenda.

Sec. 12. Creation of Independent Evaluation Units (IEUs) of Covered Entities.

- The head of any national government department, agency or instrumentality shall establish capable Independent Evaluation Units (IEU) initially at the central level subject to existing policies, rules, and regulations of the DBM on organizational and staffing pattern changes. The head of the lEU reports directly to the head of the department, agency or instrumentality. To support the work of the independent evaluation unit, the head of the national government department, agency or instrumentality shall establish a senior-level M&E advisory committee for support and oversight of M&E initiatives of the entity covered by the NEP.

Sec. 13. Utilization of Evaluation Findings and Recommendations. - The heads

of departments, agencies and instrumentalities shall submit reports on their management, response and other actions on the findings, conclusions and recommendations of completed evaluations, to the NEC and its Secretariat, the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and to the relevant committee chairpersons and support offices of the two branches of Congress. The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the national government shall ensure that evaluation findings recommendations and lessons learned are used to guide and improve the design, planning, programming, budgeting, implementation and oversight of policies, strategies, programs and projects. The NEC and its Secretariat and the evaluation units and ME advisory committees of the entities covered by this policy shall monitor the actions of the national government and its agencies and instrumentalities, on evaluation findings and recommendations.

Sec. 14. Funding for Operationalization of the RBNEP. - The national

government and Its departments, agencies and instrumentalities in the executive, legislative and judicial branches shall allocate at least three percent (3%) of their annual budgets for the implementation of the RBNEP. Such funds shall be used for: a) Evaluation capacity development; b) Ongoing salaries, recruitment and training to ensure an adequate supply of internal personnel competent in evaluation; c) Operations and maintenance; and d) External evaluation professional service fees.

Sec. 15. Amendment. - The findings and recommendations of the formative and

summative evaluations, in addition to the feedback of various stakeholders including but not limited to the NEC and its Secretariat, neutral evaluation units of entities covered by the NER and private sector and civil society organizations including international donor agencies shall guide proposed amendments of the NEP including the basic guidelines for NEP's implementation formulated by the NEC.

Sec. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - Within sixty (60) days from the

effectivity of this Act, the NEC shall promulgate the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) necessary for the proper implementation of this Act. The IRR shall specify the target outputs, short-term and medium-term outcomes, long-term impacts and other intended results of this policy. The IRR shall provide for the conduct of formative and summative evaluations of the NEP for two (2) and five (5) years, respectively, after its initial implementation. The IRR shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the completion of its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Sec. 17. Separability Clause. - If any provision, or part hereof, is held invalid or

unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.

Sec. 18. Repealing Clause. - Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive

order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with, the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified, or amended accordingly.

Sec. 19. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its

publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved,