EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

1.         A Workshop on Service Delivery and Related Operational Issues was held in Manila, Philippines on 7-8 August 2001.  This was the second of a series of four workshops to be held under the ASEAN – Australia Social Safety Net Project.  The first workshop was held in Jakarta. Subsequent workshops are being held in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur over the period November 2001 to January 2002.

2.         The workshop was organized on behalf of ASEAN by a team from the Australian National University (ANU) and Insan Hitawasana Sejahtera (IHS), a social science research firm located in Jakarta.  Principal organizers included Dr. Deborah Mitchell and Dr. Terrance Hull of ANU and Dr. Mayling Oey-Gardiner and Dr. Peter Gardiner of IHS.

3.         A total of 30 participants attended the workshop, including representation from all ten ASEAN member countries.  Additional observers from Thailand, the host country (Philippines) and the ASEAN Secretariat were also present during the proceedings.

Workshop Objectives

4.         Principal objectives of the workshop were:

·         To provide a general forum to discuss key issues and ‘best practice’ in providing for more efficient and responsive service delivery for social safety net and/or social protection programs.

·         To introduce basic concepts and themes that need to be taken account of in designing delivery systems, including issues faced at the central and local levels, and with a focus on the roles of various stakeholders down to the grass-roots level in designing, managing and implementing relevant social programs.

·         To assess advantages/disadvantages of different service delivery strategies through highlighting practical experiences (‘best practice’ cases) in service delivery applications in the ASEAN member nations.

Workshop Structure and Activities

5.         The workshop was divided into four thematic sessions.  These included presentations and discussions on general principles and approaches to service delivery and related operational issues as well as selected case studies documenting actual practice in two ASEAN member countries, Malaysia and the Philippines.

6.         Thematic sessions were further broken down into three components – an Introductory Presentation by a knowledgeable speaker on the relevant topic, Breakout Groups giving smaller groups of participants a chance to discuss to discuss specific issues arising from the presentations and to share some of their own country experiences, and a final Plenary Session for all participants to hear reports from each of the Breakout Groups.  At the end of each day there was a final Wrap-up Session to allow organizers and participants to synthesize results into important findings or lessons learned from the experience.

7.                  The first thematic session was titled Coordination and Management of Social Programs in a Complex and Changing Environment and included a presentation by Ernesto Garilao of the Asian Institute of Managements (AIM).  The paper had two main sections:

·         A section dealing with background and structure on the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) in the Philippines,

·         A section covering key issues and approaches to service delivery and how these were handled under the SRA. Specific themes or issues included those associated with:

o        Governance – requirements for strong political will, a unified agenda, clear pro-poor policy support, effective interagency coordination, an energized bureaucracy and a decentralized delivery system,

o        Participation – to ensure greater relevance of programs to beneficiaries needs, to promote accountability and to empower people in the development process.

o        Program Management – including needs for clear definition and understanding of roles of service providers at different levels, efficient mobilization of financial resources, and effective systems for performance monitoring and quality control.

Breakout Groups were asked to focus on issues associated with governance and to try to assess the significance of each of them in terms of their own county contexts and experience.  In particular they were asked to assess the relative importance of these issues, why they were more or less important, and to discuss practical ways that they were either being or might be addressed in their own country contexts.

8.         The second thematic session discussed Service Delivery and Service Quality: Building Responsive and Accountable Structures to Meet Local Needs and Demands and included a presentation by Lina B. Laigo of the Philippine Family Life Institute.  The paper reflected on a number of key concerns in building efficient and responsive service delivery systems at the local level.  These included:

·         The need for a conducive policy environment,

·         Characteristics of service providers,

·         Levels of administrative support,

·         Patterns and intensity of social mobilization and networking,

·         Funding and institutional requirements to ensure sustainability, and

·         Monitoring.

The CIDSS Program in the Philippines was used as a case to show how these issues were dealt with in a concrete situation.  A final section of the paper looked at crisis management in the Philippines during the EL Nino drought of 1997/98.

As in the first session, Breakout Groups were asked to assess the significance of each of the main concerns or issues raised in the paper and to deal with them in terms of their own county contexts and experience.  In particular they were asked to assess the relative importance of these issues, why they were more or less important, and to discuss practical ways that they were either being or might be addressed in their own country contexts.

9.         The third thematic session was a case study on Operational Issues and Solutions in Integrated Service Delivery in the Philippines based on the Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS) Program presented by Victoria Bautista of National College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines.  The session dealt with the CIDSS process, focusing on steps taken to organize and empower people and organizations at the community level.  The report used results of an evaluation study carried out by the author that both showed where the CIDSS approach had led to tangible results and identified key constraints or problems that showed resistance to easy solution

Breakout groups were asked to look at empowerment and relevance of CIDSS experience in building local empowerment in terms of their own country contexts and experience.  Attention was focused on the approaches used to build community ownership and acceptance, on the role of local technical support/facilitators and on problems faced in building sustainable delivery systems at this level.

10.       The final thematic session was also a case study on the Pusat Rahmat “One-Stop Shop” Approach to Integrated Service Delivery in Malaysia presented by Normi Nordin of the Malaysian Department of Rural Development.  Pusat Rahmat is a one-stop service center that provides rapid assistance to resolve problems encountered by the urban poor.  It does not aim to provide new services, but rather to coordinate existing services and to utilize existing resources from Government, NGOs and the private sector under a single roof.  The emphasis is on cooperation and networking among service providers, a case approach giving direct attention to clients and client groups and a common data base and information system

Breakout Groups were asked to reflect on the features of this approach and how it might be applied in their own countries.  They were also asked to compare and contrast this with the service delivery approach taken under CIDSS and to examine similarities and differences as well as aspects of comparative advantage of these approaches under various conditions in the various member countries.

Principal Findings and Conclusions

11.       Workshop presentations and participant discussions revealed considerable variation in social service delivery approaches, innovations and future directions among the ASEAN nations. Nevertheless, there was a general recognition of the importance of improving service delivery and at least in some countries, recognition of the value inherent in a shift in emphasis from national ‘top-down’ planning towards local delivery, as a more effective route to addressing the needs of the poor.  These shifts in emphasis, and innovations in delivery mechanisms, helped the workshop to focus attention on a range of issues concerning governance in service delivery – including the roles of central and local government, government and non-government organizations, and the local community in delivery of social services.  On these issues, the participants generally found that local organizations – both government and non-government – were often best placed to design, deliver and manage social service programs.  Similarly, the active participation of local communities was viewed as a critical ingredient in the delivery of appropriate and effective social protection programs.  However, it was also recognized that successful implementation of these types of approaches required considerable capacity building at the local level for both government officials and the communities themselves.

12.       The workshop discussed alternative models of service delivery, and case studies of two innovative approaches implemented in the region were explored in greater detail. The case studies highlighted the importance of: inter-agency co-ordination in service delivery; the role of partnerships between government and non-government organizations; adopting different approaches in urban and rural settings; and the critical role of performance monitoring and program evaluation.

13.       During the workshop, several themes emerged which challenged participants to consider a range of pertinent issues.  These included:

·         The importance of political will and leadership as well as an appropriate policy environment in ensuring appropriate policies and resources are devoted to social protection programs,

• The nature of their service delivery ‘culture,’ and

·         Superficial versus substantive forms of community empowerment.

As the material on the workshop proceedings shows, there was an even broader range of discussion.  However these issues were central and recurring and represent important - one might say critical – considerations in making social safety net and social protection programs operational in a truly effective and efficient manner.

14.         In fact, if there was one lesson to be learned it is that there is no single model that is applicable to all situations and contexts.   There are many ways to design delivery systems that are relevant and valid, both from the point of view of the service providers and of the clients (beneficiaries) involved.  Rather, what is important is to keep in mind basic elements of “good practice” that can be used to “validate” virtually any system.  Among others, this would include:

·         The degree to which delivery systems are user-friendly.  That is, the degree to which they are client oriented and allow beneficiaries (or groups of beneficiaries) to articulate their own priorities and needs.

·         The degree to which delivery systems support access.  That is, the degree to which they are truly inclusive (as opposed to exclusive), particularly of groups, including the poor, who are likely to be bypassed by more traditional approaches.

·         The degree to which delivery systems deliver services when and where they are needed.  In effect, this is the degree to which service delivery systems support both ease of access by those needing particular services and the timely and efficient delivery of these services when and where this is required.

15.         Some other key considerations in designing and implementing service delivery systems also arose during the workshop.  For example, in the opening presentation Ernesto Garilao, highlighted several themes that participants frequently returned to over the course of the workshop.  One of these themes concerned the policy environment in which service delivery programs operate.  He pointed out the importance of a “unified agenda” for social protection programs, that is a set of clearly enunciated – and achievable – program objectives with associated priorities.  He also stressed that policy consistency across several domains was equally important - in other words that policies in other areas should not cut across, or conflict with, anti-poverty programs.  He gave two examples to highlight how anti-poverty policies in the Philippines were frustrated by resource development and monetary policies.

16.       A second recurring theme of workshop discussions was the importance of ‘political will’ and leadership in ensuring that social protection programs received the resources necessary to provide service delivery agencies with the means and authority to achieve the desired outcomes of social programs.  While participants recognized the importance of top-level leadership and commitment to anti-poverty policies and programs, discussion also stressed the need for a similar level of commitment further down the administrative and service delivery hierarchy.  Mr. Garilao pointed out that without effective inter-agency co-operation and co-ordination ‘the best laid plans and programs’ can be derailed.

17.       In a similar vein, workshop discussions concluded that local ownership and participation in social programs are equally important in achieving sustainable outcomes of these programs.  These issues were highlighted in Victoria Bautista’s presentation where the convergence of decentralization, community participation and the role of local government and non-government organizations as key components in service delivery was discussed.  Looking at service delivery from this perspective, there was widespread agreement that grassroots commitment was the only way to ensure sustainability and that relying on ‘top-down leadership’ had several drawbacks.

18.       This last issue opened up an intensive discussion of what was meant by “community empowerment” in the ASEAN context.  This was particularly interesting given the fairly wide differences in political orientation toward this issue among the ASEAN member countries.  Thus, while there was general agreement on the importance of bringing services as close as possible to the people being served, there was less agreement on what was meant by or the role to be played by “local empowerment” in this process.   Even so, participants were able to draw clear distinctions between examples such as the CIDSS program where there was strong community involvement in planning and management of services and more passive forms of community involvement where local community leaders and representatives had little direct involvement in service planning.   

19.       The emphasis in the workshop lay in policy and technical issues related to service delivery.  However, it was also clear in the discussions that participants were also concerned with “modes” of service delivery – the nature of the actual relationship between the provider and recipient.  This was brought out most strongly in the summary presentation by the organizers at the end of Day 1.  Three common modes emerged:

·         Family mode – based on empathy and personal caring, where the service deliverer identifies strongly with the recipient,

·         Professional mode – where the deliverer adopts a strongly ethical and professional relationship with the recipient as a client, and

·         Consumer mode – where the service deliverer adopts a role analogous to a market service and aims to provide the best service possible to recipients as consumers.

Participants felt that there had been very little explicit discussion of these different modes of delivery and the relationships between providers and recipients occurring in the ASEAN region and that this would be a fruitful area for further exploration.

Follow-up Activities

20.       There are a number of areas where follow-up activities are both desirable and possible.  A large part of this lies in the area of training and capacity building, which remains a major weakness in a number of member countries where there are desires to extend and localize service networks and improve the overall quality of service delivery.  The important point to keep in mind here is that this will not be met by workshops such as this one aimed at middle to upper level public officials.  It will require attention to a much broader base of stakeholders and actors including those at the local level and both government and non-government personnel who are involved (or could be constructively involved) in the delivery process.  A few ideas emerging from the workshop discussion are outlined below.

Development of Service Delivery Case-Studies for training activities

21.       The two case studies presented at the workshop were immensely valuable in helping to focus attention on key issues and lessons learned in the design and implementation of service delivery systems.  But this hardly covers the existing wealth of international experience.  The “case study” approach has been widely and profitably used as a training tool in a variety of areas and it could be of benefit to practitioners in both public and private sectors involved in delivery of social services.  Thus, building a library of suitable case studies drawn not only from the ASEAN, but also other regions could be a very useful tool for academic institutions or other groups interested in conducting training activities in this area.  These should not only deal with mechanics related to program or project implementation, but also with issues associated with coordination between different agencies, different levels of government and between the government and non-government sectors.  These were repeatedly stressed as during the workshop as being critical to the effective delivery of services.

Capacity building for monitoring and evaluation activities

22.       Revisiting some of the discussion in the first workshop in this series, the importance of performance monitoring, setting targets and benchmarks for service delivery was stressed in all the formal presentations and reinforced during the breakout group discussions. This should not be surprising as (whatever approach is being used) there is a common agreement that at the end of the day it is the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery that matters.  And if these cannot be measured, then it will be difficult to develop and sustain quality over time.  There are a variety of approaches and tools for designing and implementing monitoring systems.  However, the human resource pool still remains limited, particularly when one considers the, now fairly widely recognized, need to inculcate some of these skills at the beneficiary and community level so that both self-monitoring and third-party monitoring can be integral parts of an overall performance monitoring and evaluation system.  Capacity building in these areas was a need identified universally by participants.

Capacity building for social preparation/community development

23.       One observation emerging both from the presentations on the CIDSS activities in the Philippines as well as other similar experiences in ASEAN regarded the overriding importance of relevant technical assistance (facilitation) and of local leadership in creating and strengthening local institutions that would, in turn, lead to development of responsive and sustainable service delivery systems at the local level.  The problem is that success in this area requires both intensive and time-consuming effort – in effect a commitment of a considerable volume of both skills and human resources if efforts are to impact on any kind of scale.  As with monitoring, there is a methodological base and a pool of existing skill, particularly in the NGO community.  The issue is one of scope and scale to ensure that the largest possible proportion of the poor and other vulnerable groups can be reached and served. 

Building legal and regulatory frameworks to support pro-poor service delivery and development

24.       Little attention was actually paid to this in the workshop discussions.  But it was interesting to note from the Philippines experience with the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) the emphasis placed on legislation to establish rights, responsibilities and obligations of various stakeholders in the service delivery process.  For example, the legislative and regulatory environment can be extremely important in any attempt at coordination of the wide variety of sectors, levels of administration and various types of actors (government, NGOs, civil society organizations, etc.) involved.  What is the range of relevant international experience?  Are there “best practice” lessons that could be learned?  These are questions that were only touched on during the workshop but remain ones that, the organizers feel, could be fruitfully explored in the future to the potential benefit of all countries in the ASEAN region.