Annex A

Annex “A”

PROGRESS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Approach The basic logic behind progress assessment of the 9 localities under consideration is to (a) derive the regional MDG targets for Bicol and (b) use these as a benchmark to determine whether the targets are being met. In assessing midterm progress, it is assumed that incremental improvements are being made annually for each MDG indicator between 1990 (the initial position) towards 2015 (the final position). This will allow for the straight-line computation of the ideal position for any year in between, which is convenient given the differences in data availability. If the regional target is met for the desired year, an LGU is said to be “on track”; otherwise, it is considered to be “off track.”

General Scenarios The MDGs and corresponding data made available for this study produced three main types of computations: 1. When the 2015 target is equal to 100% An example would be Goal 2, which calls for children able to complete primary schooling by 2015. (a) Derive the regional midterm target (RMT) The use of a spreadsheet like Microsoft Excel can greatly facilitate this. But manually, it can be computed as follows: i. Specify the initial, midterm and final positions. Based from the DepEd data on participation, these would be Initial Year: S/Y 1990-91 (or Year 1990 for brevity) Midterm Year: S/Y 2004-05 (or Year 2004), and Final Year: 2015-16 (or Year 2015). ii. Compute the ideal annual improvement (IAI). This will be equal to

IAI =

(Data for Final Year) – (Data for Initial Year) ---------------------------------------------------------(Final Year – Initial Year)

=

(100.0) - (85.8) -------------------(2015-1990)

IAI = 0.5676 iii. Compute the regional midterm target (RMT). RMT

= Data for Initial Year + [(Final Year) – (Midterm Year)] * IAI

39

RMT

= 85.8 + [(2015 – 2004) * 0.5676] = 85.8 + 6.2436 = 92.1

(b) Determine if the RMT is being met by each of the localities Essentially, if an LGU’s 2004 actual performance is equal to or greater than the RMT, then it is said to be “on track”. If it is less, then it is classified “off track”. A similarly constructed function statement using the If argument can be used in Microsoft Excel to achieve the same effect. 2. When the 2015 target is below 100% An example would be Goal 4, which calls for reducing by 2/3 the under-five mortality rate by 2015. (a) Derive the regional midterm target (RMT) Again, the use of a spreadsheet like Microsoft Excel can greatly facilitate this. But manually, it can be computed as follows: i. Specify the initial, midterm and final positions. Based from the DOH data on under-five mortality, these would be Initial Year: 1991 Midterm Year: 2004, and Final Year: 2015. ii. Compute the final year (2015) regional target. Please take note that this will vary by MDG. In this case, it requires a 2/3 reduction in the initial year (1991) data. Data for final year Data for final year

= (1 - Magnitude of reduction) * (Data for Initial Year) = (1 - 2/3) * (17.37) = 5.79

ii. Compute the ideal annual improvement (IAI). This will be equal to

IAI =

(Data for Initial Year) – (Data for Final Year) ---------------------------------------------------------(Final Year – Initial Year)

=

(17.37) - (5.79) -------------------(2015-1991)

IAI = 0.4825 iii. Compute the regional midterm target (RMT). RMT

RMT

= = = =

Data for Initial Year - [(Final Year) – (Midterm Year)] * IAI 17.37 - [(2015 – 2004) * 0.4825] 17.37 - 6.2725 11.10

40

(b) Determine if the RMT is being met by each of the localities Essentially, if an LGU’s 2004 actual performance is equal to or greater than the RMT, then it is said to be “on track”. If it is less, then it is classified “off track”. A similarly constructed function statement using the If argument can be used in Microsoft Excel to achieve the same effect. 3. When there are data constraints and the 2015 target only requires reversing initial position This will specifically apply to Goal 6, which calls for halting and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB by 2015. In view of insufficient data from the DOH, the following approach was used in assessing progress in regard to prevalence of and deaths due to malaria: (a) Determine the initial regional position (IRP) Based from the DOH data on malaria, this would be Initial Year: 2000 Midterm Year: 2005 Initial Year Data (morbidity) : 2.18 Initial Year Data (mortality): 0. (b) Determine if the IRP is being met by each of the localities Essentially, if an LGU’s 2005 actual performance (midterm year) is lower than the IRP, then it is said to be “on track”. If not (greater than or equal to), then it is classified “off track”.

41