THE CAPACITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS & TRAINING INSTITUTIONS IN DELIVERING GOVERNANCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS EDERSON DE LOS TRINO TAPIA College of Governance and Public Policy University of Makati

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY In the Philippines, many higher education institutions (HEIs) and training institutions (TIs) either public or private are engaged in what this paper terms as “governance education” programs, or GovEd programs for short. These GovEd programs are short-term training programs in the one but variously named area of public administration, public management, national or local government administration, and the like.   These GovEd programs abound and often overlap. The more important concern is their quality and excellence. Ongoing Research to Study the Capacity of Selected HEIs and TIs in Governance Education (GovEd) Public Administration Public Management National and/ or Local Government Administration

THE ISSUE OF QUALITY Governed by HEI/TI - Internal policies HEIs ensure quality to their programs through internal policies of their respective university/college, guidelines from the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), as well as through the accrediting association of which they are members. TIs also follow their own internal quality standards but they are not under any accrediting body, which implies that each and every TI follow its own quality rules and regulations. Moreover, HEIs and TIs also vary in their standards of delivering GovEd programs. Governed by HEI/TI - Internal policies HEI - Guidelines from the Commission on Higher Education HEI - Accrediting Associations Varying Standards

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The delivery of quality GovEd programs depends on the agency’s capacity to do so. The question that needs to be raised is then: What are the existing capacities of these HEIS and TIs in the provision of GovEd programs? Do they have a lower level of capacity, or below average capacity, or higher capacity to deliver GovEd programs?   What are the existing capacities of these HEIs and TIs in the provision of GovEd programs? Do they have a lower level of capacity, or below average capacity, or higher capacity to deliver GovEd programs?

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 1. To determine the current state of capacity of GovEd institutions covered by the study in delivering GovEd programs; 2. To compare their current levels of capacity in terms of whether they have a high, average, or lower than average level of capacity; 3. To identify factors which may be responsible for the differential level of capacities among these GovEd institutions;

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 4. To analyze why some GovEd institutions are strong in certain capacity components and why some are weak in similar or other capacity components; 5. To determine the GovEd institutions’ level of awareness of their existing capacities and their efforts to sustain their strengths and to make up for their weaknesses;

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 6. To identify the problems that prevent them from strengthening their capacities; and 7. To present a Programs and Standards Framework on capacity building and enhancement applicable across all GovEd institutions towards a successful implementation of their respective programs/courses.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

CAPACITY Components Factors that make for capacity What it can do to individuals and organizations

CAPABILITY VS CAPACITY Capability refers to the individual knowledge, skills and attitudes of a person or group of persons and their competence to undertake the responsibilities assigned to them (Imbaruddin, 2003, citing Franks, 1992). Capacity is the “ability of an individual or group to actually carry out their responsibilities” (Imbaruddin, 2003: 12, citing Franks, 1992: 52). First, it is important to know what the distinction is between “capability” and “capacity.” The literature provides such a distinction between the two terms often mistaken as synonymous with each other. Capability refers to the individual knowledge, skills and attitudes of a person or group of persons and their competence to undertake the responsibilities assigned to them (Imbaruddin, 2003, citing Franks, 1992). The existence of qualified faculty who have Master’s and PhD degrees indicate capability. Capability constitutes one variable on which capacity depends.   In contrast, capacity is the “ability of an individual or group to actually carry out their responsibilities” (Imbaruddin, 2003: 12, citing Franks, 1992: 52). Capacity is “the ability to carry out stated objectives” (Goodman, et al, 1998). A qualified faculty may not translate to capacity if the faculty members are not provided the resources and incentives for them to do their jobs. Capacity emerges when resources are mobilized and allocated properly or adequately (Goodman, et al, 1998). It may happen then that though capability contributes to capacity, it may also happen that capability may not lead to capacity.

DEFINITIONS OF CAPACITY Ability to do something (MacMillan) Ability to carry out stated objectives (Goodman et al: 1998) Ability of the individual or group to actually carry out their responsibilities (Imbarrudin: 2003) Capacity as ability Capacity as a state of readiness or preparedness of a person or institution to do its tasks The Macmillan dictionary definition of capacity tells that it is “the ability to do something” (www.macmillandictionary.com/). Goodman, et al (1998) also defines it as “the ability to carry out stated objectives.” Among the definitions available, that of Imbaruddin (2003: 12, citing Franks, 1992) is a more appropriate one; capacity is defined as “the ability of the individual or group to actually carry out their responsibilities.” Capacity is, thus, commonly categorized as ability. Common sense informs what ability is. But the key word in Imbaruddin’s and Franks’ definition is the word, “actually.” Another consideration worth noting is that ability is a characteristic of a person or group, and not of any other thing. Still, there is talk about institutional capacity, which does not relate to persons but to institutions.

ELEMENTS/ COMPONENTS OF CAPACITY

ELEMENTS/COMPONENTS OF CAPACITY Human Resources Physical, material, and financial resources Leadership resource Organizational-institutional resources A GovEd institution has capacity if it is ready to administer and implement its programs and courses. It is ready because its directors, its faculty, and its staff are trained and skilled, because it is equipped with adequate resources and facilities, or because its leadership motivates people with incentives such as better pay scales and other benefits, or because the organizational environment/structure allows arrangements that enliven and strengthen rules about accountability, transparency, and participation within the organization. What elements, components or dimensions does capacity have? As the previous paragraph suggests, the elements or components of capacity may include but are not limited to the following:   Human resources: trained or skilled directors, faculty, staff and who continue to undergo faculty/staff development; Physical, material, and financial resources: Advanced/modern facilities and equipment and sufficient budget are provided and made available; Leadership resource: The top executives are supportive, providing faculty and staff with incentives/benefits; and Organizational-institutional resources: The organizational environment/structure is such that it promotes and sustains policies, rules, and other arrangements on accountability, transparency and participation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Assessment of the Study Programs and Standards Framework GovEd institutions, whether HEIs or TIs (leftmost box within the dotted line) are engaged in a service: educating/training clientele who are supposed to perform governance functions in their respective agencies, or who are interested to know about governance because the knowledge they may gain would be a useful input in their job. On the other hand, due to differences in human, physical, financial, and organizational resources, these GovEd institutions effect differences in the quality of delivering their services. That is, they have different capacities to deliver GovEd programs/courses. The next box, also within the dotted line which is marked “Capacity components” on top, the existing capacities of GovEd institutions are set apart for examination and analysis. Of the various factors that make up for capacity or that would constitute capacity, the study conceptualizes four component categories. They are interrelated in terms of roles and functions, but are just conceptually compartmentalized for purposes of the study. The four capacity components are: 1) human resources; 2) physical, material, and financial resources, 3) the leadership resources; and 4) the organizational-institutional resources.   Thus, it can be hypothesized that the more capable and competent the human resources are of a GovEd institution, the more it possesses the capacity to deliver successful GovEd programs/courses. Similarly, the more it has physical, material, and financial resources, the more it possesses such capacity. The more supportive its leadership is, the more that this enhances capacity. Lastly, the more that its organizational-institutional resources lend to accountable, transparent and participatory processes and arrangements, the more any GovEd institution has the capacity to deliver GovEd programs effectively and efficiently. With all four components present, it can also be hypothesized that the GovEd institution concerned would have greater capacity than others engaged in the same service. On the other hand, the lesser that all the four components or even any one of them exists, the lesser the capacity of the GovEd institution. Differential capacities, thus, provide a picture of an array of GovEd institutions from greater, to moderate, to lower capacities (third box within the dotted line). As such, those with greater, moderate, or lower capacities would correspondingly produce greater, moderate, or lower quality/excellence in their GovEd programs/courses (fourth box within the dotted line). All these factors and processes are subjected to external assessment by an outside, independent researcher (top portion of Figure 1). The data gathered yield to an analysis that leads to the formulation of an overall Programs and Standards Framework that would work for all GovEd institutions nationwide, for both HEIs and TIs (bottom portion of Figure 1). The framework, once made use of, links back to the HEIs/TIs (long arrow stretching from the Programs and Standards Framework up to the leftmost part of the dotted line, which marks the boundary of the internal context of GovEd institutions).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Descriptive Mix of Quantitative-Qualitative Methods of Data Gathering Three-stage sampling Stratified sampling by region - National Capital Region

HEIs Center for Policy and Executive Development (CPED), UP-NCPAG Ateneo de Manila School of Government (ASOG) One from the following: Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance (DLSU), School for Professional Advancement and Continuing Education (MLQU) and Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP)

TIs Association of Schools in Public Administration (ASPAP) Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) Local Government Academy (LGA)

RESPONDENTS 1. Dean/Coordinator/Director of the GovEd department/program; 2. Two full-time faculty members who had been with the GovEd institution for more than five years; and 3. Two middle-level staff who had been with the same GovEd institution for at least 10 years (if none available, those with five to seven years of experience working with the same GovEd institution).

INSTRUMENT Capacity to deliver governance education programs checklist Profile Information of GovEd Institution Capacity Indicators per component/measure Likert-Type Scale, with 4-degree rating scale

DATA GATHERING Descriptive Analysis of profile characteristics and information and data obtained from interviews Subjective, open-ended questions are to be organized through thematic/content analysis with common answers grouped in categories. Rating-scale responses to be tallied and counted in totals and percentages

DATA GATHERING Weighted means analysis for comparative average response between HEIs and TIs Weighted means for HEI and TI groups to be subjected to a t-test to determine if differences exist in responses of the groups. Correlation analysis may also be attempted to correlate rating-scale responses with the profile characteristics of the GovEd institution under study

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

CPED

CPED Center for Policy and Executive Development 49 years of experience in training national and local executives Think tank, research and consulting office Expertise in dealing with public policy issues, executive and administrative development, and governance

CPED: Training Objectives Enhance capabilities Reorient values Develop skills and techniques for effective management of public sector projects

CPED: Training Objectives Develops materials for the training of trainers (TOT) on — Effective program design Implementation and evaluation of training programs Public policy analysis and development

CPED: Human Resources Headed by a Director and five technical staff Technical Staff are all Masters degree holders One Master in Public Administration graduate, others are in International Studies or Development Studies

CPED: GovEd Programs Project Development and Management Enables participants to understand concepts, principles of project development and management, learn project planning and designing, write feasibility studies Policy Formulation and Analysis Introduces participants to the policy process, various tools and methods in project framing of policy problems, evidence-based solution search and selection of alternatives

ATENEO SCHOOL OF GOVERNANCE

ASOG Established in 1996, autonomous unit since 2001 Public sector arm of the Graduate School of Business Trains political leaders, civil servants and corporate managers

ASOG: Course Offerings Policy Development (3 modules) Environmental Governance and Climate Change (2 modules) Local Economic Development (3 modules) JVO Executive Program Governance (3 modules) Leadership and Management (2 modules) Challenges in Innovation and Governance (4 modules)

ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SCHOOLS IN THE PHILIPPINES (ASPAP)

ASPAP Organized in 1979 Member Schools offer degree programs in public management, public administration and governance Program and activities also include — Fora, seminars and conferences Advocacy and Extension Capacity Building and Development Research and Knowledge Products Linkages, partnership and networking locally and globally

ASPAP: Capacity Building and Development Activities Advanced Trainers’ training on Local Mainstreaming of Human Rights Trainers’ Training for ASPAP member-schools Seminar-workshops on Local Mainstreaming of Human Rights and Gender Development for ASPAP member-schools and LGUs Case-Documentation workshops for ASPAP member-schools

ASPAP: Capacity Building and Development Activities Training on conducting surveys for local schools and LGUs Strengthening ASPAP-LGU partnership towards improving governance and service delivery Mainstreaming Social Accountability into Public Administration Education

ASPAP: Human Resources Ten officers and six Board Members Most of the officers are doctorate degree holders Housed in UP-NCPAG

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACADEMY

LGA: GovEd Programs Mandated institution for capacity building in local governance in the Philippines Operating for 25 years Caters to needs of local officials, functionaries, DILG and LGA personnel

LGA: Program Types Business-Friendly and Competitive LGUs Environment Protective, Climate Change Adaptive and Disaster Resilient LGUs Socially Protective and Safe LGUs Accountable, Transparent, Participative and Effective Local Governance Strengthened Internal Governance Capacity

LGA: Flagship Program NEO (Newly Elected Officials) Program 5 components Ensuring Smooth Transition Jumpstarting Local Governance Looking Forward to Better Governance Sharpening the Saw Enhancing LGU Performance

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS HEIs and TIs may either be public or private On Conduct/Implementation of Programs CPED administers two GovEd programs ASOG conducts numerous programs but customized needs may imply that some short courses may not be implemented given the dependence on number of requesting parties LGA also conducts various programs with continuity and sustainability in program implementation ASPAP seems to have no current training activity for 2017

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Duplication among the courses offered Development of respective niche per institution CPED on Policy Analysis for LGUs ASOG on Contextual view to understanding of influences (ethics, economics, politics) on governance by both public and private leaders ASPAP on concerns in the teaching of Public Administration among member-schools towards good practice of LGUs in public administration and management

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS While CPED, ASOG, and the LGA has an assurance of sustainability in its operations and training programs because they are part of a bigger institution which has reliable resources, the case of ASPAP is that it is a TI that risks inactivity because it depends on the financial contributions of its member-schools. Once a member-school delays its contribution or pulls its membership out of ASPAP, then that means it is headed for some unsustainability problems in the future.

WAY FORWARD & GOVERNANCE - CAPACITY CONNECTION Governance-capacity connection is recognized to be important at the LGU level Governance Quality Index for LGUs: 1) capacity of the LGUs to mobilize and utilize resources, 2) efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of social services, and 3) presence of mechanisms to ensure accountability Manasan, Gonzalez, & Gaffud (1999:2). Governance-capacity connection is recognized to be important at the LGU level. Manasan, Gonzalez, & Gaffud (1999:2) constructed a governance quality index for LGUs which embodied three elements: 1) capacity of the LGUs to mobilize and utilize resources, 2) efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of social services, and 3) presence of mechanisms to ensure accountability. They said that before LGUs can even start to provide goods and services, they must first mobilize and allocate resources. The way LGUs manage resources impact strongly on outcomes.

WAY FORWARD & GOVERNANCE- CAPACITY CONNECTION DILG and LGA: LGUs need to develop their capability to perform their roles effectively, efficiently, and responsibly. Capability building is designed to increase knowledge, skills, competitiveness, and improved behaviour to be able to bring about desired change. Program Standards and Framework for Capacity Building These capabilities may be the ability of LGUs to participate in development using their technical, managerial, and entrepreneurial skills. Capability building is designed to increase knowledge, skills, competitiveness, and improved behaviour to be able to bring about desired change. The most vital way to increase capability is the development of the LGUs’ human resources, that is, the improvement of employees’ knowledge and abilities, the increase of their motivation, and the encouragement for them to stay with the organization. Philippine organizations often lack the operational capacity for different areas of specialization such that professionals perform both function and responsibilities that are lodged in one office.

THANK YOU