Our last posting was 02 Dec, more than two months ago. I am tempted to say "Sorry to All," but it may not be appropriate. Not too many people visit our BLDF posts and there is no indication from the few who do that they have missed my posts. It will be quite a distraction, if not a source of humor at my expense, if I apologize for something that is not too important anyway to people.
But, still, my apologies to all, more of courtesy, than contrition.
Anyway, two months have passed too quickly. Too many things have absorbed my attention - BLDF-related matters among them. I will deal on what we have gone through regarding BLDF.
First, it has to be stated that unlike most NGOs, BLDF states explicitly in its by-laws that one of its objectives is to work closely with the Provincial Government or LGUs in initiatives to improve the planning, implementation and monitoring of poverty reduction projects. After ten years, it has persevered in pursuing this objective. We have spent the most part of the period prior to the board meeting in January in doing formal and informal assessment on our experiences regarding this objective.
Among the lessons learned are as follows:
-We need to set a standard of behaviour in working with Government. Most of the time, LGUs and government agencies perceive us to be a charitable organization. Hence, they treat us depending on what they think they can get from us in terms of grants. We need to manage their perception so that they can view us as equal partner in development.
-This microfinance component needs to be studied seriously. We always run into difficulties to the extent that we end up paying for the loans that our clients fail to pay back due to a variety of reasons. The reports that we read from other sources of microfinance are just too good to be true. They must know something we do not know, although we have done everything according to the book. The inability to pay back loans is influenced by factors beyond the control of any project. Others are either lying or they must be using collection techniques that are not in the books.
-Some people think BLDF is in the business of selling the PDMS software. We have had ten years of field-testing and modifying it with major technical contributions from Tony Irving, a British national initially recruited as VSO. He was the one who designed and developed the software from the time it was still LPRAP to these days of Version 3.0. The PDMS survey methodology and software have been adopted in other municipalities and cities in the Philippines and in a few areas outside the country. Still, people misunderstand us.
-We need more effective means to make people realize BLDF, which owns the copyright to the software, is not selling the software. It only allows clients to use it. The token fee that is paid by clients goes to further developing the software which also benefits them in the end. Again, we must stress this, it's not all a matter of installing the software. Client LGUs need to use or modify the survey based on their situation. There is a whole process involved from the survey to the installation of the software and to the use of the household database in local-level planning.
-During the last ten years, PDMS has been used by several externally-funded projects in Bohol. No project money has been used for the software. Token fees were paid for by the LGUs. While the LGUs pay the reimbursements, a few client LGUs take 1 to 2 years to pay for these fees and reimbursements of survey and data encoding expenses. Hence, this partnership with LGUs regarding the software is more of a financial burden to BLDF.
-In Maa, Davao City, the LPRAP software installed by Tony Irving and his counterpart, Arnold Seloterio, in 2007, is still used to track progress of families living in garbage dumps. All of the families have received assistance from the local parish. Significant gains have been achieved by most of the poorest families to improve their lot. By the time Fr. Cenon left the parish late last year, the use of the LPRAP software has been expanded to five barangays. They are still using the same old software version and those who were trained as field interviewers are now serving as trainers and community organizers to the new volunteers. It shows you do not need the latest software to really track who need assistance most and to see their progress over the years. It shows also we need not confine ourselves to LGUs as partners in the use of a poverty database in pro-poor service delivery.
-Over the years, we have given briefing on PDMS to the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC). Now we hear NAPC is implementing a project in 28 out of 48 LGUs. It is not clear whether its project will involve the use of a poverty software. We have not received word from any of the government partners on whether PDMS will be used in NAPC areas and in the rest of Bohol. DILG and DSWD seem to be promoting their respective survey and software tools for the use of the province. Despite the 10-year history of PDMS use in the province, nobody has contacted BLDF on how PDMS can still be used officially by LGUs. The lesson is for BLDF to look for other partners in the use of its PDMS methodology and software.
-During its last meeting of the Board of Trustees, it was decided that on account of new challenges, another reorganization be undertaken. The Trustees approved in principle the proposal that those above 60 will move to compose the membership of an Advisory Council and the rest to form the nucleus of a new Board and that younger members be invited. This proposal will require further study. Rather than reorganization, what is more important is a harder look at the strategies it has adopted over the years and to decide on its "core business" for the next five years.
These are some of the thinking going on with BLDF as it enters the new year. It will be interesting to exchange notes with other NGOs, on how they have managed to survive, and what is their outlook regarding the future of their own NGO or NGOs in general.
Let's find out what happens next.
But, still, my apologies to all, more of courtesy, than contrition.
Anyway, two months have passed too quickly. Too many things have absorbed my attention - BLDF-related matters among them. I will deal on what we have gone through regarding BLDF.
First, it has to be stated that unlike most NGOs, BLDF states explicitly in its by-laws that one of its objectives is to work closely with the Provincial Government or LGUs in initiatives to improve the planning, implementation and monitoring of poverty reduction projects. After ten years, it has persevered in pursuing this objective. We have spent the most part of the period prior to the board meeting in January in doing formal and informal assessment on our experiences regarding this objective.
Among the lessons learned are as follows:
-We need to set a standard of behaviour in working with Government. Most of the time, LGUs and government agencies perceive us to be a charitable organization. Hence, they treat us depending on what they think they can get from us in terms of grants. We need to manage their perception so that they can view us as equal partner in development.
-This microfinance component needs to be studied seriously. We always run into difficulties to the extent that we end up paying for the loans that our clients fail to pay back due to a variety of reasons. The reports that we read from other sources of microfinance are just too good to be true. They must know something we do not know, although we have done everything according to the book. The inability to pay back loans is influenced by factors beyond the control of any project. Others are either lying or they must be using collection techniques that are not in the books.
-Some people think BLDF is in the business of selling the PDMS software. We have had ten years of field-testing and modifying it with major technical contributions from Tony Irving, a British national initially recruited as VSO. He was the one who designed and developed the software from the time it was still LPRAP to these days of Version 3.0. The PDMS survey methodology and software have been adopted in other municipalities and cities in the Philippines and in a few areas outside the country. Still, people misunderstand us.
-We need more effective means to make people realize BLDF, which owns the copyright to the software, is not selling the software. It only allows clients to use it. The token fee that is paid by clients goes to further developing the software which also benefits them in the end. Again, we must stress this, it's not all a matter of installing the software. Client LGUs need to use or modify the survey based on their situation. There is a whole process involved from the survey to the installation of the software and to the use of the household database in local-level planning.
-During the last ten years, PDMS has been used by several externally-funded projects in Bohol. No project money has been used for the software. Token fees were paid for by the LGUs. While the LGUs pay the reimbursements, a few client LGUs take 1 to 2 years to pay for these fees and reimbursements of survey and data encoding expenses. Hence, this partnership with LGUs regarding the software is more of a financial burden to BLDF.
-In Maa, Davao City, the LPRAP software installed by Tony Irving and his counterpart, Arnold Seloterio, in 2007, is still used to track progress of families living in garbage dumps. All of the families have received assistance from the local parish. Significant gains have been achieved by most of the poorest families to improve their lot. By the time Fr. Cenon left the parish late last year, the use of the LPRAP software has been expanded to five barangays. They are still using the same old software version and those who were trained as field interviewers are now serving as trainers and community organizers to the new volunteers. It shows you do not need the latest software to really track who need assistance most and to see their progress over the years. It shows also we need not confine ourselves to LGUs as partners in the use of a poverty database in pro-poor service delivery.
-Over the years, we have given briefing on PDMS to the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC). Now we hear NAPC is implementing a project in 28 out of 48 LGUs. It is not clear whether its project will involve the use of a poverty software. We have not received word from any of the government partners on whether PDMS will be used in NAPC areas and in the rest of Bohol. DILG and DSWD seem to be promoting their respective survey and software tools for the use of the province. Despite the 10-year history of PDMS use in the province, nobody has contacted BLDF on how PDMS can still be used officially by LGUs. The lesson is for BLDF to look for other partners in the use of its PDMS methodology and software.
-During its last meeting of the Board of Trustees, it was decided that on account of new challenges, another reorganization be undertaken. The Trustees approved in principle the proposal that those above 60 will move to compose the membership of an Advisory Council and the rest to form the nucleus of a new Board and that younger members be invited. This proposal will require further study. Rather than reorganization, what is more important is a harder look at the strategies it has adopted over the years and to decide on its "core business" for the next five years.
These are some of the thinking going on with BLDF as it enters the new year. It will be interesting to exchange notes with other NGOs, on how they have managed to survive, and what is their outlook regarding the future of their own NGO or NGOs in general.
Let's find out what happens next.
No comments:
Post a Comment