1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. STATEMENT OF
THE PROBLEM

5. 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?

6. OBJECTIVES
OF THE STUDY

7. 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;

8. 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;

9. 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.

10. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

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

12. 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.

13. 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” (
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.

14. ELEMENTS/
COMPONENTS
OF CAPACITY

15. 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.

16. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

17. 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).

18. RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY

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

20. 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)

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

22. 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).

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

27. CPED

28. 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

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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. ATENEO SCHOOL
OF GOVERNANCE

34. 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

35. 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)

36. ASSOCIATION
OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
SCHOOLS IN THE
PHILIPPINES
(ASPAP)

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

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

41. LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
ACADEMY

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. THANK YOU