The successful implementation of DevInfo in NRO4a may largely be attributed to a well defined policy framework, effective capacity building strategy and inclusion of DevInfo into the work process. The Regional Development Council passed a resolution endorsed by NRO4a encouraging all member agencies and LGUs to establish knowledge centers and use of DevInfo as a data management tool. NRO4a carried out a uniform DevInfo training patterned after UNICEF sponsored training, making minor modifications only where and when warranted. The NRO4a team capitalized on the mapping and statistical functions of DevInfo to convince many LGUs who were otherwise contented in using Microsoft Office applications for storing their databases. NRO4a required co-sharing of training expenses, subscribing on the principle that cost free goods and services are often taken for granted and wasted. Direct application and use of DevInfo linked to an accountable output ensures sustainability and proper maintenance and upkeep of the tools for the trade.

Problems in Implementation

           Despite these success stories, the implementation of DevInfo across regions and CPC provinces and cities            vary. Among the major problems encountered include:
1. Data are not regularly updated and reports are not routinely disseminated;
2. A mechanism or a process for ensuring and maintaining robustness of data has not been established.

           With regards to knowledge centers, the repository of DevInfo:

1. Many knowledge centers are passive repositories of data and not a dynamic, proactive and regular supplier of     data and information to intended users.
2. Some knowledge centers were operated like a children’s library. They were setup to cater to children and not     to the intended users who are the programme and project implementers.

           It is however inevitable, that in a devolved setup, the demand for local level statistics is more pressing. Data are required for preparing development plans, sectoral plans, requests from local and international financing institutions, media and the general public. LGUs have no choice but to reluctantly carry on data gathering using national information systems to generate local statistics. Other LGUs invested in developing their own information systems, engaging the services of consultants to get the job done. Hence, this lead into varying information systems that were designed based on needs thereby creating differences in indicator definition, methodology, software platforms and even operating systems. Consolidation of data across provinces, regions and national level becomes a nightmare.

Knowledge Center Functionality

           In this year’s Midterm Review, UNICEF commissioned the services of an independent institutional consultant to evaluate Knowledge Center functionality. The criteria used are as follows4: Level 1 Functionality: Governance and Database. Indicators include: (1) competent KC Managers, (2) functional Knowledge Network Committee, (3) access to a functional personal computer, (4) DevInfo software is installed and operational, (5) has institutionalized work process, and (6) KC submits DevInfo database and standard reports to UNICEF. The assessment of level of compliance simply uses a star rating wherein each star corresponds to each of the six criteria.

           Level 2 Functionality: Information Products. Still using the star rating system, the highest number of stars in Level 2 is four. This is for the three required information products: State of the Children Report, Fact Sheet and Newsletter. An extra star is for products beyond the required three.

           For Level 3, the only criterion is the ability of the KC Manager to advocate for children agenda and policies that would spur action from decision makers.

           he results of the evaluation are presented in Table 1. Of the 12 KCs studied, 67% are level 3 functional, 17% are level 2 functional and 8% level 1 functional. One KC (8%) is not functional at all.

           The degree or quality of functionality of the KCs is affected by a host of factors, foremost of which is the lack of timely and accurate data. Unreliable data affects outputs of DevInfo, thereby affecting the relevance of the information generated which ultimately will impact on decisions made by the local chief executive. For example, the planning officer from Camarines Norte questions the statistics used on functional literacy and hunger; in Sarangani the planning officer questions the basis for ranking his province as 4th poorest in the country, and the gross underestimation of the number of indigenous peoples in the province; and the Quezon City Mayor questions the city’s population that do not seem to support the observed huge number of informal settlers and high mobility of the population.

Lessons Learned and Way Forward

           Is UNICEF’s investment in ChildInfo and DevInfo training to over a thousand people during the past 7 years worth it all? Would a different strategy worked more effectively?

           The tool is only as good as the user, the accompanying inputs to the tool and the usefulness of the outputs produced by that tool. Below are some of the conclusions observed during the implementation of DevInfo in the Philippines:

1. There is a strong need to validate administrative data inputted in DevInfo. Survey data that have gone through      a scientific validation process are not available at provincial and municipal levels.

2. Most government personnel, even at the LGU levels are fast learners and receptive to the use of DevInfo. It is      oftentimes their technical capacity, their patience and their diligence to ensure quality data inputted to DevInfo      that are overlooked.

3. Evidence-based decision should be institutionalized in most LGUs. Many LGU planners who give advice to local      chief executives lack the capacity to analyze data and conduct policy analysis.

4. There is a need to build capacity of LGU staff to be able to produce advocacy materials that media can      disseminate to the public. Media people cannot be readily expected to use DevInfo data and tell “stories”      based on the tables, charts and maps generated by the software.

           As a result of the MTR, UNICEF Country Office in the Philippines recommends the following:

1. The conduct of DevInfo training will be turned over to a competent training agency that could more effectively      implement and sustain training on software use and applications.

2. UNICEF will invest in the training of NEDA and CPC staff on statistical analysis, data interpretation and report      writing for policy makers and media.

3. UNICEF will invest on streamlining a data collection system that would ensure reliability and improve accuracy      of data.

4. UNICEF will support encoding of national survey results in DevInfo and make these available to the public for      free.

5. UNICEF will continue using DevInfo to produce advocacy materials and encourage other agencies to use the      program.

        For additional readings and reference material, email arodriguez@unicef.org.