The need for Local Productivity and Performance Measurement (LPPM)

The existence of the Local Government Code over the last eight (8) years, revealed conflict in definitions, perceptions and interpretations not only among local officials but also from implementers and beneficiaries of the goods and services.  But on the process of its implementation, the underlying consequence rest on the critical need to gauge the efficiency and effectiveness of services of local governments.  An inquest of performance which relate to the internal capability of those manning the local bureaucracy and Productivity which is on the promotion and delivery of basic services towards economic growth and opportunities needs to be measured somehow.  The many attempts to amend the Code deters to timely develop and adopt a tool to ascertain the performance and productivity level of LGUs at a given period of time.  For indeed local government units is the ultimate impetus of the code.

It is therefore necessary to adopt the notion of Local Productivity and Performance Measurement (LPPM) initiated by the Bureau of Local Government Supervision, DILG Central Office.  This was introduced and has been initially implemented in 1984 and was revived last year (1999).  Certainly, this self-assessment tool is a positive and critical response towards determining performance gaps useful in guiding local decision makers and program implementers for policy reforms and interventions.

In DILG region 02 as a consequence of the pilot testing of LPPM application of BLGS and DILG Region XI versions in 1999, thus in consideration to the region’s assessment instrument for the Search for Outstanding Municipalities of the Year, came up with its Modified LPPM.  The system has three major components:  Management Tools (MTs), Assessment of Services, and Service Budget Allocation.  Conceptually, Management Tools should be formulated on the basis of the Assessment of Services which should ideally reflect the aspirations of its constituents.  The Service Budget Allocation (SBA) on one hand should financially support the priorities as indicated in the management tools.

The system involves the accomplishment of survey forms (LPPM Form 1) where the services delivered by local governments are measured with the standard indicators set by national government agencies.   An Executive Reports which will reflect the analysis of findings from LPPM form 1 shall be prepared by the concerned LPPM technical working group composed by local functionaries of the local government unit concerned.

It was encouraged in the said report to include issues, concerns and recommendations in the LPPM implementation to mention areas or items to be improved, composition of the LPPM Committee, commentaries of local and national authorities/implementers and other related concerns to further strengthen LPPM.

Recently, the number of prevailing performance measurements initiated by the department, such as the Local Government Performance and Review System (LGPRS) which is in the nature of a Devolution scoreboard aside from the LPPM BLGS and Region XI versions, were integrated into one.  The features and objectives are similar which is to determine administrative and policy reforms generated from bench marking process aimed at giving meaning and substance to local autonomy. It was for this reason that the BLGS with the Development Academy of the Philippines, Center for Local Governance and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), conducted a Conference cum-Workshop on the Enhancement of the LPPM last July, 2000. 

It highlighted the integration of BLGS and DILG Region XI and the LGPRS where the participants of the conference agreed on the following;  

·  LPPM conceptual framework

·  Internal and external indicators

·  rating system and

·  administrative support mechanisms

Finally, an Enhanced LPPM System has been evolved. It is expected that the Manual will be released at the end of the year 2000 and that a training workshop for field officers and LGUs will be conducted in CY 2001.