Keywords

Local Government, Decentralization, Calumpit, LGU Performance Culture, Philippines

Introduction

The implementation of the Local Government Code is a landmark in the devolution policy agenda of the Philippine government. The Local Government Code, in general, promotes the establishment of an accountable, efficient, and dynamic organizational structure and operating mechanism that will meet the priority needs and service requirements of every LGUs. The Code declares the state’s policy of giving the local government units a genuine and meaningful local autonomy. This policy constituted a system of devolution for LGUs. Thus, they exercise greater leadership and management responsibilities. It is, therefore, very important for LGUs to put into effect good governance to ensure the efficient and effective performance of these responsibilities, and to optimize the support of national government and external assistance agencies to promote development at the local level.

In this manner, consideration should be given to decentralization. These concepts loosen-up the restriction on governance and focused on performance of the local unit. Thus, the local government unit (LGU) gains an advantage if it deputizes the appropriate authority to the lower-level officials.

Thus, in the case of the Municipality of Calumpit, the rule of the thumb is to maximize decentralization to deliver the services needed by the citizenry.

Objective of the Study

This paper endeavors to offer the contribution to policy discussions in the local government sector in the way they render their services to the locality.

Towards this objective, the paper shall:

  1. Evaluate the understanding of devolution of the Municipality and acknowledge the improvement of people’s lives.
  2. Assess the performance by the Local Government of the Municipality of Calumpit as perceived by the locality.

Scope and the Limitation

The study is mainly an assessment of the performance Culture of the Municipality of Calumpit. The areas covered are the sectors of Social Service, Economic Development, and Environmental Management.

The researcher fielded the questionnaire during the month of September using a self-made survey. All data collected for each sector is specific for the respondents of the study. A total of 125 were asked to answer the questionnaire and barangay, were chosen based form the lottery. Out of 29 barangay, 5 were picked to represent the sample. Sectors like Teachers, Farmers and Fishermen, Owner of Stores and ordinary citizen from barangays Frances, San Marcos, Sapang Bayan, Poblacion and San Miguel became the respondents.

Table 1: The Distribution of Respondents in terms of Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 61 48.8
Female 64 51.2
Total 125 100

The table above shows the distribution of respondents regarding Gender. There is a slim difference in terms of gender with female getting 64 respondents or 51.20% while male got 61 or 48.80%.

Table 2: The Distribution of Respondents in terms of Civil Status

Civil Status Frequency Percentage
Single male 12 9.6
Single female 11 8.8
Married 90 72
Husband or wife Departed 7 5.6
Separated 5 4
Total 125 100

Table 3: The Distribution of Respondents in terms of the Nature of Work

Kind of Work Frequency Percentage
Professional 30 24
Worker 12 9.6
Farmer 4 3.2
Fisherman 26 20.8
Business man 9 7.2
Volunteer in the Barangay 30 24
Others 14 11.2
Total 125 100

Table 4: The Distribution of respondents in terms of Age

Age Frequency Percentage
20-25 7 5.6
26-30 7 5.6
31-35 13 10.4
36-40 19 15.2
41-45 30 24
46-50 3 2.4
51-55 26 20.8
56-60 13 10.4
61-65 5 4
66 – above 2 1.6
Total 125 100

The distributions of respondents above manifested that the respondents are in the age bracket of 41-45 years with a frequency of 30 with percentage of 24 % among the total respondents. This followed by the by age bracket, 51-55 years of age with a frequency of 26 among the total respondents. Moreover, the least of the frequency of the respondents is in the age 66 and above. A thorough look on the table will show that the bracket age 20-25 and 26-30 manifested equal participation among the respondents.

Core Development Challenges

A Five-point scale is used to gauge the level of development. It also uses color codes are applied to visualize the result.

5 4 3 2 1
Very High High Fair Poor Bad

Figure 1

The Municipality of Calumpit and the local officials have their assessment on how they have delivered the services. And the way they respond to the demand of the state in the delivery of services.

Social Development

Calumpit is doing an excellent performance in 1 out of 4 sub-areas of Social Governance. Sustain Performance in this area is Health, Education and Peace and Security.

Table 5: Social Development

Area of Performance Evaluation LGPMS
1. Health 4.85
2. Education 4.05
3. Peace 4. 62
Average 4.5

It can be gleaned on the table the areas which get higher performance specifically, health with 4.85 followed by education with 4.05. This result indicated a high rating but not Excellent. This can be understood as the LGU extended education to the community. However, the Local School Board might have to do more to advance the cause of those in need of quality education. With regard to Peace and Security, it shows high mark with 4. .62. but not excellent. The need to guarantee Peace, Security and Disaster Risk Management should be given importance.

It can be gleaned on the table the areas which get higher performance specifically, health with 4.85 followed by education with 4.05. This result indicated a high rating but not Excellent. This can be understood as the LGU extended education to the community. However, the Local School Board might have to do more to advance the cause of those in need of quality education. With regard to Peace and Security, it shows high mark with 4. .62. but not excellent. The need to guarantee Peace, Security and Disaster Risk Management should be given importance.

Table 6: Economic Development

Area of Performance Evaluation LGPMS
1 Support to Agriculture Sector 4.52
2.Entrepreneurship, Business and Industry 3.36
Average 3.94

Nothing of the two areas in Economic Governance marked excellent performance. The result means the need to dedicate more time and effort on the areas for improvement.

Environmental Management

The LGU is doing an excellent performance in 1 out of 2 sub-areas of Environmental Governance Sustain Performance in this area:

Table 7: Environmental Management

Area of Performance Evaluation LGPMS
1.Freshwater ecosystem management 5
2. Urban Ecosystems Management 4.75
Average 4.87

The areas for improvement are listed by priority, with a mark of 4.75, High but not Excellent. This means the area gets the lowest performance scale (Urban Ecosystems Management).

Perception of Constituents on the Performance of the LGU

Measure of performance can only be validated if and when the result of performance is experience of the beneficiary.

Table 8: Social Development

Area of Performance Evaluation Mean
1. Health 4.03
2. Education 3.87
3. Peace 3.9
Average 3.93

It can be gleaned on the table above that among the areas of evaluation as perceived by the constituents, Health got the highest performance rating, with a score of 4.03 followed by peace and order with 3.90 performance rating. Lastly, education got the lowest performance rating.

Table 9: Economic Development

Area of Performance Evaluation Mean
1. Agriculture 4.03
2. Business 3.88
Average 3.96

The above table presents the performance rating of the municipality in regarding economic development. Agriculture received the highest rating with 4.03 as compared to the 3.88 rating by the business sector. The average rating given by the constituent is 3.96.

The table below shows the performance rating of the municipality regarding Environmental Management. With the natural resource management received the lowest rating as compared to the garbage management with a grade of 3.86 and 4.25 respectively.

Table 10: Environmental Management

Area of Performance Evaluation Mean
1. Natural Resource Mng’t 3.86
2.Garbage Mng’t 4.25
Average 4.06

Table 11: Comparative Evaluation on the Performance of the Local Government of Calumpit regarding Social Services

Area of Performance Evaluation Performance Evaluation of the Constituents LGPMS
1. Health 4.03 4.85
2. Education 3.87 4.05
3. Peace 3.9 4.62
Average 3.93 4.56

It can be gleaned on the presentation above the comparative assessment on the performance of the Municipality of Calumpit in the area of Social Services. These areas of social services are Health, Education and Peace and Order. The rating based from the LGPMS is 4.85 which can be considered as excellent but the assessment given by the respondents is 4.03 which mean very satisfactory. In the field of education, both assessment fall under the same bracket with verbal interpretation of very satisfactory. In the case of peace and order there is again a difference in terms of assessment with LGPMS as excellent and the assessment of the constituents as very satisfactory. In terms of the average assessment one can notice the difference in terms of their assessment, with LGPMS of 4.56 while the respondents with 3.93.

Table 12: Comparative Evaluation of the Performance of the Local Government of Calumpit regarding Economic Development

Area of Performance Evaluation Performance Evaluation of the Constituents LGPMS
1. Agri. 4.03 4.52
2. Business 3.88 3.36
Average 3.96 3.64

The above table shows the assessment of both the respondent and the municipality’s assessment. It can be noticed that there is no considerable difference between the two.

Table 13: Comparative Evaluation of the Performance of the Local Government of Calumpit regarding Environmental Management

Area of Performance Evaluation Performance Evaluation of the Constituents LGPMS
1. Natural Resource Management 3.86 5
2.Garbage Management 4.25 4.75
Average 4.06 4.88

The table presented above manifest the performance evaluation of both the LGPMS and the respondents. There is a clear difference between the two specifically on the area of Natural Resource management. LGPMS registered a perfect score of 5.00 while the assessment of the respondents is 3.86.On the other hand there is no considerable difference on the area of garbage management.

Findings

In the light of the discussions and presentation, a differences in the performance culture as assess by both the respondents (citizenry) and the municipal officials as manifested in the LGPMS.

  1. To be particular, in the area of Social Services, starting from the area which gets the lowest performance scale is in the fields of education with 4.05 followed by areas which get higher performance scales which is health is 4.85, High but not Excellent.
  2. In the area of Economic Development, the areas for improvement are listed by priority, starting from the area which gets the lowest performance scale followed by areas which get higher performance scales, respectively. Priority Area for Improvement Support to Agriculture Sector, with performance description of 4.52 this can be considered as High but not Excellent. Having this idea in mind, the local government needs to intervene.
  3. The sector in which both the LGPMS registered as high performance and similar to that of the assessment of the respondents is in the sector of Environmental Management.
  4. As assess by the constituents, sector which registered a very satisfactory rating is in the area of Environmental Management. With the natural resource management received the lowest rating as compared to the garbage management with a grade of 3.86 and 4.25 respectively which both registered a very satisfactory rating.
  5. Education got the lowest performance rating. Agriculture received the highest rating with 4.03 as compared to the 3.88 rating by the business sector.
  6. Both the LGPMS registered as high performance and similar to that of the assessment of the respondents is in the sector of Environmental Management. To be particular, Urban Ecosystems Management (Garbage Management) with a mark of 4.75 high but not excellent. Pollution control and proper solid waste management are essential in preserving the integrity of the environment.
  7. As assess by the constituents, both sectors registered a very satisfactory rating is in the area of Environmental Management. With the natural resource management received the lowest rating as compared to the garbage management with a grade of 3.86 and 4.25 respectively which both registered a very satisfactory rating.
  8. Education got the lowest performance rating with regard to the social service rendered by the local government unit.
  9. Agriculture received the highest rating with 4.03 as compared to the 3.88 rating by the business sector.

Conclusion

The achievements of decentralization manifested improvement in governance. In the long run, both input and outputs process will result in an outcomes that will benefit the local government unit. In the issues at-hand it can be said that in some way or the other the performance culture of the LGU (Municipality of Calumpit) as based from the LGPMS and that of the assessment of the respondents have differences.

  1. This is probably because some of the programs and projects of the municipality were not properly disseminated to the constituent.
  2. Another reason is that the assessment of the LGU can be said as effective while the respondents did not look at it that way even though the LGU delivered the services.

Recommendation

  1. Improve the quality of primary health care or basic curative services and mobilize the Local Health Board.
  2. Invest the Special Education Fund in actions that improve the quality of the human capital such as (a) construction, repair or maintenance of school buildings and facilities, (b) extension classes and extension teachers, and (c) educational research. Be reminded that sports competition, whether at the district level or local government-wide, is the mandate of another agency, and definitely not of the Department of Education or of the LGU and the Local School Board.
  3. Strengthen the Local Disaster Coordinating Council.
  4. Ensure that support to business specifically to those categorized as micro, small and medium enterprises.
  5. Provide tax incentives.
  6. Procure equipment and services for product labeling and product packaging.
  7. Initiate training, job fairs and trade fairs.
  8. Provide irrigation system, farm-to-market roads and post-harvest facilities.
  9. Distribute planting materials and fertilizers.
  10. Be in the fore front of research and development.