Status Report on the Enterprise Scorecard

for the period January to December 2013

The CSC Annual Executive Operational Planning Conference for 2014 held from
December 9 to 11, 2014 at Bulwagang Serbisyo Sibil, CSC Central Office opened
with a reporting of accomplishments (as of October) in the Enterprise Scorecard
under the Performance Governance System and Major Final Outputs under the
Results-Based Performance Management System (RBPMS).

Following the reporting of accomplishments were discussions on what went well,

performance gaps, and areas for improvement in project implementation and
progress monitoring.

An initial listing and calendar of priority projects per office was plotted and emailed to
the participants. The Integrated Performance Scorecards (IPS), Project
Implementation Plans (PIP), and Annual Procurement Plans (APP) of Central and
Regional Offices and process owners should have been submitted for review of
OSM at the close of 2013. OSM will then turn over the final version of these
documents at the beginning of 2014 for the assessment of the Performance
Management Team and in accordance with the SPMS Calendar.

Scorecard Measures Up-close

Measure 1: Percentage of agencies accredited under the

Program to Institutionalize Meritocracy and Excellence in
Human Resource Management (PRIME-HRM) Level II

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

N/A 10% 25% 40% 50%
(159 agencies (398 agencies (636 agencies (795 agencies
Target revalidated out ofLevel II accredited Level II accredited Level II accredited
1,590 accredited out of 1,590 out of 1,590 out of 1,590
agencies) accredited accredited accredited
agencies) agencies) agencies)
2011 2012 2013
N/A 16.5% 25.28%
(262 offices (402 agencies
Accomplishment revalidated under Level II accredited)
PRIME-HRM)

Regional Breakdown:

Regional PRIME-HRM 2013 Target Number of % of

Office Universe: of Level II PRIME-HRM Accomplishment
Agencies accreditation Level II
accredited at 25% of accredited
under CSC 1,590 agencies
Agency accredited
Accreditation agencies
Program
(CSCAAP)
1 103 26 26 100%
2 72 18 20 111%
3 136 34 41 120%
1
 4 177 44 35 82.28%
5 92 23 24 104%
6 222 55 25 45.45%
7 91 23 23 100%
8 43 11 3 27.27%
9 25 6 10 166%
10 102 25 37 148%
11 82 21 33 157%
12 26 7 7 100%
CARAGA 68 17 23 135%
CAR 100 25 25 100%
NCR 249 62 69 111%
ARMM 2 1 1 100%
Total 1,590 398 402 101%

Revalidation of agencies, the first major step in the PRIME-HRM implementation,

occurred in a span of two years since the release of MC No. 3, s. 2012: Program to
Institutionalize PRIME-HRM dated February 16, 2012:

Regional Revalidated Agencies

Office 2012 2013 Total
1 12 49 61
2 14 36 50
3 28 86 114
4 38 42 80
5 25 34 59
6 32 107 139
7 7 43 50
8 10 21 31
9 8 17 25
10 15 49 64
11 14 18 32
12 13 11 24
CARAGA 2 34 36
CAR 5 51 56
NCR 39 147 186
ARMM 0 2 2
Total 262 747 1,009

The 1,009 revalidated agencies comprise 63% of the program’s universe of 1,590
accredited agencies under CSCAAP. The remaining 37% of accredited agencies
under CSCAAP have been recommended for revocation.

As an initial activity of the project Strengthening CSC’s PRIME-HRM: The

Assessment Phase, the Assessors Capacity Building Workshop was conducted in
two batches from October 21-24, 2013 where PRIME-HRM Checklist and Indicators
were introduced. These checklist and indicators were used by the participants when
they conducted the Comprehensive HR Assistance, Review and Monitoring
(CHARM) to the targeted 398 agencies from October 26 to December 26, 2013.

As an off-shoot to the said workshop, a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

was conducted, one of which covered consultations with the private sector on the
HRM Maturity Levels for the four HR core functions, namely, Recruitment, Selection
and Placement, Training and Development, Rewards and Recognition and
Performance Management. Results of these FGDs will form part of the next phase of

2
the project which is the Assessors Training on New Standards and Quality
Assurance.

PRIME-HRM in CSC:

No movement yet on the PRIME-HRM Level II accreditation of CSC, which was

targeted in 2013, PRIME-HRM Level III in 2014, and Seal of Excellence in 2015
under the Second Level Scorecard of OHRMD.

Measure 2: CSC Client Satisfaction Rating

(CSC frontline services)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Target Acceptable Good Good Excellent Excellent
(70 – 79%) (80 – 89%) (80 – 89%) (90%) (92%)
2011 2012 2013
Good Good Good
(87% in CSC (89.14%) (87.3% in CSC
ARTA-RCS ARTA-RCS
Accomplishment and 98% and 98%
satisfaction satisfaction
rating of rating of
selected govt selected govt
agencies) agencies)

The Commission has been consistently rated as ‘Good’ in the Report Card Survey
from 2011 to 2013.

At the regional level, Regions 1 and 12 have earned an Excellent rating for two years
in a row. They were duly recognized on Day 2 of the Directorate’s Conference.

The RCS in the Commission was first conducted by Pulse Asia in November 2011
and again, in February 2013 with 510 respondents from the Central Office, 16
Regional Offices, and 2 Field Offices per region. For 2012, the RCS was conducted
by CSC Researchers along with accredited CSOs.

The surveys in 2012 and 2013 were both done during the peak of the filing of exam
applications. Other services of the Commission included in the survey were: (1)
issuance of certified copies of documents, (2) counseling/response to queries/
assistance on civil service matters, and (3) authentication of certificate of eligibility.

2012 2013
Office Numerical Adjectival Numerical Adjectival
Rating Rating Rating Rating
Central 80.49 Good 89.5 Good
Region:
1 90.80 Excellent 91.2 Excellent
2 91.42 Excellent 83.0 Good
3 89.46 Good 85.6 Good
4 92.88 Excellent 85.3 Good
5 93.67 Excellent 86.2 Good
6 89.90 Good 87.4 Good
7 90.27 Failed* 84.3 Good
8 85.99 Good 86.5 Good
3
 9 91.65 Excellent 84.6 Good
10 89.30 Good 84.6 Good
11 87.08 Good 85.6 Good
12 91.03 Excellent 90.6 Excellent
CARAGA 86.61 Good 91.5 Excellent
CAR 90.37 Excellent 86.9 Good
NCR 85.58 Good 88.4 Good
ARMM 89.63 Good 85.0 Good
Total 89.14 Good 87.3 Good
*Region 7 got a final descriptive rating of Failed because of the regional office’s
failure to meet the cutoff grade in the area of physical working condition.

Measure 3: Breakthrough Important Goal (BIG):

Percentage of high density agencies and their
service offices passing the Anti-Red Tape Act –
Report Card Survey (ARTA-RCS)

Baseline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

50 20% 40% 100% 75% 100%
service Target (469 (560 (770 service offices (1,145 (1,527
offices service service + 150 Failed in service service
surveyed offices) offices) 2012 = 920) offices) offices)
in 2010 2011 2012 2013
21% 43% 99.44%
Accomplishment (497) (599) (901 service offices
out of 906)

Passing Rate:

Baseline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

78% N/A N/A 85% 95% 98%
(39 Target (782 SOs) (1,088 SOs) (1,496 SOs)
passed 2011 2012 2013
out of 50 73% 75% 92.89%
SOs Accomplishment (361 (449 (837
surveyed) passed out passed out passed out
of 497 SOs of 599 SOs of 901 SOs
surveyed) surveyed) surveyed)

Regional Breakdown (1st RCS):

RCS % of
Region 2013 Cancelled Adjusted Conducted Accom Passed Failed Passing
Target (Feb-Dec) Target (Feb-Dec) plishment Rate
1 40 40 40 100% 39 1 97.50%
2 31 31 31 100% 28 3 90.32%
3 73 73 74 101% 65 9 87.84%
4 110 1 109 109 100% 94 15 86.23%
5 46 46 49 106% 47 2 95.92%
6 55 55 55 100% 53 2 96.36%
7 54 54 54 100% 45 9 83.33%
8 35 35 35 100% 34 1 97.14%
9 32 32 32 100% 30 2 93.75%
10 38 3 35 35 100% 32 3 91.42%
4
 RCS % of
Region 2013 Cancelled Adjusted Conducted Accom Passed Failed Passing
Target (Feb-Nov) Target (Feb-Dec) plishment Rate
11 41 41 41 100% 39 2 95.12%
12 34 3 31 31 100% 29 2 93.55%
ARMM 45 45 45 100% 44 1 97.77%
CAR 26 26 27 103% 27 0 100%
CARAGA 25 2 23 23 100% 22 1 95.65%
NCR 85 85 85 100% 85 0 100%
Total 770 9 761 766 100% 713 53 93.08%

Since 2011, the Commission consistently fulfills its RCS targets. For 2013, service
offices of 24 agencies and ARMM, as a special group, were surveyed. The cancelled
9 RCS were due to low number of clients as 30 respondents are required within the
three-day survey of a service office.

Aside from the 761 service offices, we have also targeted the 2 nd RCS of the 150
service offices that received a Failed rating in 2012.

For the 2nd RCS of the Failed agencies in 2012:

2nd RCS
Target Cancelled Adjusted RCS % of Passing
Region (2012 (Feb-Dec) Target Conducted Accom Passed Failed Rate
Failed) (Feb-Dec) plishment
1 7 1 6 6 100% 6 0 100%
2 9 9 4 44.44% 3 1 75%
3 9 1 8 8 100% 8 0 100%
4 28 28 28 100% 24 4 85.71%
5 8 1 7 7 100% 7 0 100%
6 10 10 10 100% 9 1 90%
7 10 2 8 8 100% 7 1 87.50%
8 5 5 5 100% 5 0 100%
9 6 6 6 100% 6 0 100%
10 11 11 11 100% 10 1 90.90%
11 7 7 7 100% 7 0 100%
12 3 3 3 100% 3 0 100%
ARMM 4 4 4 100% 3 1 75%
CAR 3 3 3 100% 3 0 100%
CARAGA 14 14 14 100% 13 1 92.85%
NCR 16 16 16 100% 15 1 93.75%
Total 150 5 145 140 96.55% 129 11 92.14%

Only 5 RCS left from Region 2. The 5 RCS were cancelled as these service offices
have terminated their operations.

Not content with just the number of RCS conducted, the Commission set a passing
rate in the RCS – 85% for 2013 – which the Commission surpassed at 92.89%.

A factor that helped Failed agencies to earn a passing mark in the RCS is the
immediate administration of the Service Delivery Excellence Program (SDEP). Failed
5
agencies that are ‘treated’ with SDEP undergo another round of RCS. Notice the
decrease in the number of Failed agencies:

120
98
100
80
80 71
67
60 53

40

20

0
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Service Delivery Excellence Program (SDEP):

The SDEP is an integral part of the ARTA Program as it is the Commission’s

intervention for agencies that received a Failed rating before a 2nd RCS is scheduled.

SDEP Level 1 refers to simple infractions such as absence of a posted Citizen’s

Charter or a Public Assistance / Complaints Desk (PACD), non-wearing of IDs, no
anti-fixing measures, non-observance of the no noon break policy etc. SDEP Level
2, on the other hand, pertains to complex causes of failure that will require
assistance on how to improve the systems and operations of the office.

Below is the performance of the Regional Offices on the implementation of the SDEP
Level 1 and SDEP Level 2 as of December this year:

No. of Failed SDEP Level 1 SDEP Level 2 % of

Region agencies in 2013 Target Conducted Target Conducted Accomplishment
1 1 1 1 0 0 100%
2 3 1 1 2 0 33%
3 16 10 10 6 6 100%
4 19 14 11 5 5 84.21%
5 3 3 3 0 0 100%
6 2 1 1 1 1 100%
7 15 14 14 1 1 100%
8 6 6 5 0 0 83.33%
9 2 0 0 2 0 0%
10 3 0 0 3 3 100%
11 7 2 2 5 2 57.14%
12 3 2 1 1 1 66.66%
ARMM 10 9 9 1 1 100%
CAR 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
CARAGA 8 7 7 1 1 100%
NCR 11 10 10 1 1 100%
Total 109 80 75 29 22 88.99%

6
Nine ROs (1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, ARMM, CARAGA, and NCR) have concluded their SDEP
activities.

The National ROFs of the following agencies were sent to the Commission for review
and later on, discussion with the heads of agencies:
1) Cooperative Development Authority
2) Commission on Higher Education
3) Department of Social Welfare and Development
4) Department of Tourism
5) Home Development Mutual Fund
6) Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
7) Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
8) Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
9) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
10) Securities and Exchange Commission

The ARTA Project Management Office (PMO) is finalizing the ROFs of the following
agencies:
1) Bureau of Immigration
2) Department of Environment and Natural Resources
3) Department of Labor and Employment
4) Development Bank of the Philippines
5) Food and Drug Administration
6) Land Bank of the Philippines
7) Land Registration Authority
8) Land Transportation Office
9) National Bureau of Investigation
10) National Food Authority
11) National Prosecution Service
12) National Statistics Office
13) Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
14) Public Attorney’s Office

Citizen’s Satisfaction Center Seal of Excellence

The CSC Seal of Excellence is awarded to a service office that garnered an

Excellent rating in the RCS. This means that the service office’s numerical rating falls
between 90% to 100% with no Failed rating in any of the areas under Compliance
with ARTA provisions and Overall client satisfaction.

Following are the service offices awarded (to be awarded) with the CSC Seal of
Excellence:
1) CHED – CAR, La Trinidad, Benguet
2) DBP – Naga Branch
3) DBP – Bacolod Branch
4) DOT – Boracay Island Field Office
5) DSWD – CAR, Baguio City
6) GSIS – Antique Satellite Office
7) GSIS – Bacolod Branch
8) GSIS – Bohol Branch
9) GSIS – General Santos City Branch
10) HDMF – Naga Branch
7
 11) HDMF – Cebu South Branch
12) HDMF – Davao City
13) LBP – Alicia Branch, Isabela
14) LBP – Carbarroguis Branch, Quirino
15) LBP – Iba Branch, Zambales
16) LRA – Naga
17) LTFRB – RO 2, Tuguegarao City
18) LTO – Roxas City District Office
19) NFA – Tarlac City
20) NSO – RO 2, La Union
21) NSO – Aklan
22) OWWA – RO 1, La Union
23) OWWA – RO 2, Tuguegarao City
24) PAO – Las Piñas City District Office
25) PAO – Malabon City District Office
26) PAO – Guimba District Office, Nueva Ecija
27) PAO – Iba District Office, Zambales
28) PAO – Tagbilaran City District Office, Bohol
29) PAO – Roxas City District Office, Capiz
30) PAO – Mati City District Office, Davao Oriental
31) PAO – Cagayan de Oro City District Office
32) PAO – Kidapawan City District Office, North Cotabato
33) PAO – Iligan City District Office, Lanao del Norte
34) PAO – Isulan District Office, Sultan Kudarat
35) PCSO – Tarlac City Provincial Office
36) PHIC – Digos City
37) SEC – Tarlac City Extension Office
38) SSS – Goa, Camarines Sur

Forty resolutions on the candidates for the CSC Seal of Excellence are with the
Commission:
39) CHED – RO 2, Tuguegarao City
40) CHED – RO 3, Pampanga
41) DENR – CENRO, Aparri
42) GSIS – Malolos, Bulacan
43) GSIS – Pagsanjan, Laguna
44) LBP – Plaza Malate, Manila
45) LBP – San Carlos City, Pangasinan
46) LRA – Cabarroguis, Quirino
47) NPS – Malaybalay, Bukidnon
48) Natl Center for Mental Health – Mandaluyong City
49) Tuan Ligaddung Lipae Memorial Hospital – Sapa Sapa, Tawi-Tawi
50) DOLE – Cabinet Hills, Baguio
51) LBP – Bansalan Branch, Davao del Sur
52) LBP – Cauayan Branch, Isabela
53) LBP – Malolos Plaza Branch, Bulacan
54) PAO – Batangas City District Office
55) PAO – Central Office, Quezon City
56) Valenzuela Medical Center, Valenzuela City
57) SSS – Tobaco City Branch, Albay
58) PAO – Macabebe District Office, Pampanga
59) PAO – Bacolod City District Office, Negros Occidental
8
 60) PAO – Kalibo District Office, Aklan
61) LBP – Miag-ao Branch, Iloilo
62) LBP – Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro
63) LBP – Los Baños Branch, Laguna
64) LBP – Kalibo Branch, Aklan
65) LBP – Borongan Branco, Eastern Samar
66) LBP – Biñan Branch, Laguna
67) LBP – Candelaria Branch, Quezon
68) LBP – Balanga Branch, Bataan
69) LBP – Dagupan City Branch, Pangasinan
70) LBP – Gapan City, Nueva Ecija
71) LBP – Capas Branch, Tarlac
72) LBP – San Fernando Branch, Pampanga
73) LBP – Vigan City Branch
74) LBP – Agoo Branco, La Union City
75) GSIS – Surigao City Branch
76) PHIC – RO1, Dagupan City
77) GSIS – San Fernando City, La Union
78) Dr. Serapio B. Montañer Jr., Al Haj Memorial Hospital, Malabang, Lanao del
Sur

Thus, 78 agencies are expected to receive the CSC Seal of Excellence as of the
November 14 cut-off. The ensuing candidates for the CSC Seal of Excellence will be
awarded in 2014.

Partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

CSC, in partnership with UNDP, engaged with the University of the Philippines –
National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG) for two
research studies under the Project Title of Developing a Corruption-Intolerant
Society. These are the (1) Impact Study on the ARTA-RCS Implementation to check
if there are any changes in government’s service delivery that are attributable to the
ARTA-RCS implementation and (2) A Toolkit on Participatory Mechanisms for
Citizen/CSO Engagement on Citizen’s Charter Formulation or Improvement. The
results were initially presented in the ARTA Community of Practice: Process Review,
Planning and Recognition last December 5-6, 2013 at Sequioa Hotel in Quezon City.

ARTA-RCS in 2014

The second ARTA Community of Practice: Process Review, Planning and

Recognition, also funded by the UNDP, became a venue for ARTA Regional
Coordinators and their assistants to share operational concerns and at the same
time, arrive at solutions collaboratively.

For instance, the duration of project implementation in 2013 was projected from
February to August, but the surveys extended up to December.

Implementation delays were mainly because: (1) some ROs had to handhold and
wait for the target SOs under NBI, NPS and DBP to post their Citizen’s Charter and
(2) client density in some offices were low, prompting extension of the RCS beyond
five days.

9
Another finding is that only 30.34% of the RCS reports were submitted on time. This
means that only 230 reports out of 761 surveys conducted were completed and
submitted within the 8-day period prescribed in the 2013 Revised Policy Guidelines.
In practice, the 8-day period became a 15-day RCS period, on the average.

Such discussions, which may be considered for best practice in program

implementation, have become an invaluable input to the ARTA PMO in its drafting of
the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) for 2014, which will be distributed to the ROs
by end of January.

Compliance with the Citizen’s Charter

Additional items were included in the validation of compliance of agencies with the
Citizen’s Charter, one of the good governance conditions in the RBPMS.

OSM distributed the validation guidelines during the Directorate’s Conference and
gave the ROs up to December 27, 2013 to complete the validation of NGAs,
constitutional offices, GOCCs, other executive offices, SUCs, and their service
offices.

Measure 4: Percentage of agencies with approved

Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)
and Percentage of agencies with functional SPMS

Approved SPMS:

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

20% 30% 70% 95%
Target N/A (498 out of (747 out of (1,743 out of (2,366 out of
2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies) 2,490 agencies)
2011 2012 2013
15.66% 44.37%
Accomplishment N/A (390 agencies as (1,105 agencies)
validated)

Functional SPMS:

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

85% of approved 90% of
Target N/A N/A N/A SPMS in 2012 approved SPMS
and 2013 in 2014
2011 2012 2013
Accomplishment N/A N/A 13.75%
(152 out of
1,105 agencies
with approved
SPMS)

10
Regional Breakdown:
2013 Target Approved % of
Regional (30% or 747 SPMS Total Accomplish Functional
Office agencies) 2012 2013 ment SPMS
1 55 2 55 57 103% -
2 34 72 24 96 282% -
3 71 5 95 100 140% -
4 88 48 51 99 112% -
5 42 33 20 53 126% -
6 61 0 17 17 27.87% -
7 49 49 51 100 204% -
8 53 50 60 110 207% 110
9 29 0 44 44 151% -
10 37 50 30 80 216% -
11 22 3 70 73 331% 34
12 24 23 4 27 112% -
CARAGA 28 35 10 45 160% 4
CAR 28 5 30 35 125% -
NCR 88 8 120 128 145% 2
ARMM 39 7 34 41 105% 2
Total 747 390 715 1,105 147% 152

A whopping 147% or 1,105 agencies have an approved SPMS as of December

2013. The conflicting figures for 2012 were verified with the Regional Directors
during the Directorate’s Conference. CSCROs 1 and 2 though still have to provide its
list of agencies with approved SPMS in 2012.

The ROs have also started reporting on agencies with functional SPMS, totaling to
152, even if the target to transition from an approved to a functional SPMS is still due
for 2014.

However, OSM observed that there are ROs that have declared as functional the
SPMS of agencies whose dates of approval are less than a three-month rating
period:
Agency Date of SPMS approval
Davao del Norte State College, RO 11 Oct. 21, 2013
Lupon Davao Oriental, RO 11 Oct. 21, 2013
Buenavista Water District, CARAGA Nov. 15, 2013

HRPSO verified this with the ROs and gathered that the date of reckoning is from the
time the SPMS was conditionally approved.

Moreover, the database of agencies being maintained by HRPSO has increased

from 2,490 to 2,519:

Sector 2,490 breakdown 2,519 breakdown

NGAs 19 19
Attached agencies 113 113
Other agencies 52 52
Constitutional and judicial offices 9 9
GOCCs 89 89
SUCs 111 111
LWDs 381 398
11
 LGUs 1,716 1,728
Total 2,490 2,519

Decision Point: Will the SPMS targets adopt the additional 29 agencies?

HRPSO will arrive at its final output on a model SPMS for SUCs that was started in
September.

Measure 5: Number of ISO-certified core

and support processes

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

N/A 3 4 5 5
(Cases (Maintain the 3 (Maintain the 4 (Maintained)
Target
Adjudication, Processes + Training Processes + 1
Examination, Process) Core Process)
Appointments
Processing)
2011 2012 2013
N/A Identified CSI Training
Processes Processes ISO-
Accomplishment
ISO-certified certified + Maintenance
of 3 ISO-certified
processes

The year 2013 ended with the External Training Service Provision (ETSP) included
in the Expanded CSC Quality Management System (QMS). The CSI Training
Processes ISO-certified are as follows:
1) Training Needs Determination
2) Business Development
3) Learning Service Provider (LSP) Selection and Evaluation
4) Training Design and Development
5) Training Delivery and Implementation
6) Training Evaluation

Following were the activities prior to the inclusion of the ETSP in the Commission’s
ISO certification:
 Pre-Certification Audit (PCA) on November 6
 Corrective Action Planning after the PCA on November 7
 2nd Semester General Assembly on November 8
 1st Surveillance Audit of CSC QMS on November 12

Relative to the maintenance of the CSC QMS for Cases Adjudication, Examination,
and Appointments Processing, as well as the ETSP, the following activities were
conducted from February to December:
 Basic Internal Audit Seminar
 Internal Audit of the CSC QMS for the 1st and 2nd Semesters
 Enhanced Audit Skills Training Workshop
 Management Orientation on ISO 9001:2008
 Management Planning
 Management Review Meeting
12
  Pre-Certification Audit (PCA)
 Corrective Action Planning after the PCA
 General Assembly for the 1st and 2nd Semesters
 Surveillance Audit of CSC QMS
 Seminar-Workshops on:
 Post Cause Analysis
 Potential Problem Analysis and Prevention
 Objective Setting
 Competency Table and Training Plan Workshop

The Client Satisfaction Ratings of the Central Offices for ISO were included in the
Second Level Scorecards. This still has to be aligned though with the internal RCS.

Likewise, the next core process for ISO certification in 2014, as committed in the
Enterprise Scorecard, still need to be identified.

Measure 6: Breakthrough Important Goal (BIG):

Percentage of cases decided within 40 days
from the time they are ripe for resolution

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Target 30% 60% 70% 80% 95%
2011 2012 2013
50.34% 63.59% 76.39%
(3,459 out of 6,871 (4,372 out of 6,875 (6,798 out of 8,899
Accomplishment
cases resolved cases resolved cases resolved
within 40 days) within 40 days) within 40 days)

Regional Breakdown:

Regional Office No. of Cases DC* NDC** No. of Cases DC NDC % (Cases
Ripe for Decided Decided / Ripe
Resolution within 40 Days for Reso)
1 274 80 194 273 79 194 99.64%
2 403 60 343 380 42 338 94.29%
3 1,927 356 1,571 1,642 115 1,527 85.21%
4 403 110 293 394 108 286 97.77%
5 278 85 193 254 64 190 91.37%
6 290 42 248 267 33 234 92.07%
7 644 32 612 509 28 481 79.04%
8 753 115 638 654 82 572 86.85%
9 128 37 91 128 37 91 100%
10 142 93 49 140 91 49 98.59%
11 31 15 16 31 15 16 100%
12 127 9 118 127 9 118 100%
CARAGA 104 35 69 96 35 61 92.31%
CAR 247 146 101 224 128 96 90.69%
NCR 432 155 277 394 142 252 91.20%
ARMM 279 100 179 279 100 179 100%
RO Total 6,462 1,470 4,992 5,792 1,108 4,684 89.63%
Central Office (CO) 2,437 1,028 1,409 1,006 41.28%
CO + RO 8,899 2,498 6,401 6,798 76.39%
*DC – Disciplinary Cases

13
 **NDC – Non-disciplinary Cases

Overall, the Commission reached 76.39% or 6,798 cases resolved out of 8,899
cases ripe for resolution. To be consistent with the reporting in the RBPMS last year,
the disposition rate of OLA was taken into account for an 88.89% accomplishment or
8,458 cases resolved out of 9,506 cases ripe for resolution.

Below is a breakdown of historical performance:

By Month in 2013:

as of as of as of as of as of as of as of
June July August September October November December
RO 95.48% 93.97% 91.06% 90.89% 90.82% 89.42% 89.63%
OLA (30 days) 67.85% 70.35% 71.84% 70.13% 70.85% 71.09% 71.36%
CO 13.47% 14.42% 14.27% 13.19% 13.68% 13.48% 41.28%
RO + CO 69.06% 69.02% 67.89% 67.80% 69.23% 68.57% 76.39%

By Year:
2012 2013
RO 86.15% 89.63%
OLA (30 days) 35.48% 71.36%
CO 9.71% 41.28%
RO + CO 63.59% 76.39%

Measure 7: Percentage of CSC employees meeting

their mission-critical job competency standards

Baseline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

66.23%
(716 out of Target N/A N/A 70% 75% 80%
1,081 –
data in 2012)
2011 2012 2013
N/A 66.23% To be
(baseline determined
data) once all
Accomplishment offices have
submitted
their
competency
assessment
forms

Second Competency Assessment

In October 2013, OHRMD conducted a series of Orientation on Competency

Assessment for 2013 in the CO where OHRMD facilitated the accomplishment of the
competency assessment forms. The said forms shall be processed to determine the
competency gaps of an employee, which shall be used in the employee’s 2014 IDP.

14
As of December 2013, OHRMD retrieved 68.30% (791 out of 1,158 CSC employees)
of the competency assessment forms.

OHRMD will then compare the 2013 assessment results with that of 2012 as well as
the Learning and Development interventions and generate a report on this by
January 2014.

Measure 8: Zero Unliquidated Cash Advance

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Target N/A 100% 100% 100% 100%
2011 2012 2013
RBPMS 89.57%
Accomplishment N/A Rating: (2,689 CA liquidated on time
Passed out of 3,002 CA granted)

Regional Breakdown:

Regional Office No. of CA No. of CA No. of CA % of

granted liquidated liquidated beyond Accomplishment
within the the reglementary
reglementary period
period
Central Office 377 307 41 81.43%
1 166 112 54 67.47%
2 103 97 6 94.17%
3 38 38 0 100%
4 86 80 2 93.0%
5 147 147 0 100%
6 176 172 4 97.73%
7 100 100 0 100%
8 54 48 3 88.89%
9 169 169 0 100%
10 176 169 7 96.02%
11 173 173 0 100%
12 418 418 0 100%
CARAGA 262 225 37 85.88%
CAR 143 143 0 100%
NCR 177 154 3 87.01%
ARMM 237 137 88 57.81%
Total 3,002 2,689 191 89.57%

Allotted number of days for liquidation is dependent on the type of cash advance:
 Local travel – within 30 days upon return to official station
 Foreign travel – within 60 days upon return to the Philippines
 Special project – within 30 days upon completion of the project
 Salaries and wages – within 5 calendar days after the end of the pay
period

In compliance with the PGS Audit Findings and Recommendations, the good
governance condition ‘100% of cash advances liquidated’ shall be transferred to the
Second Level Scorecards.

15
Instead, the measure for the Finance perspective will be ‘amount of financial support
from partners’:

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Target N/A 25 Million 50 Million 55 Million 60 Million
2011 2012 2013
45.95 Million 52.06 Million
Accomplishment N/A (PAHRODF, (PAHRODF, UNDP, local
UNDP) partners)

Breakdown:

Program Cash Donor Non-cash Donor

Develop and P12,025,750 AusAID
Deploy a Culture (AUD 275,000)
of Transformation
in CSC
Strengthening P9,955,200 AusAID
CSC PRIME-HRM (AUD 240,000)
– The Audit
Assessment
Phase
Developing and P9,540,400 AusAID
Installing a (AUD 230,000)
Learning and
Development
System
Midterm P4,000,000 AusAID
Organisational (AUD 96,432.02)
Assessment
HR Symposium P4,000,000 AusAID
(AUD 96,432.02)
Technical P1,600,000 AusAID
Assistance on the (AUD 38,572.81)
Strengthening of
the CSI
Short Courses on P1,252,000 AusAID
HROD
Review of P300,000 AusAID
Scholarship Award (AUD 7,232.40)
System of CSC
ARTA / Developing P1,686,800 UNDP
a Corruption- ($40,000)
Intolerant Society
Honor Awards P5 million Office of Medals, BSP, GSIS,
Program the accommodation, DOT, Duty
President meals, cell Free, Radio
phones TV
equivalent to Malacañang,
P884,700 DZRB

16
 Advertising
worth P1.820
million
Total P49,360,150 P2,704,700

Measure 9: Number of priority programs

implemented through technical cooperation
with local and international partners

Baseline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Target 6 7 9 11 12
4 2011 2012 2013
9 10
(Job competency, (PRIME-HRM, SPMS,
Leadership Coaching Competency-based Devt
Accomplishment and Branding, ISO, Proj, Leadership and
ARTA, Contact Center Coaching Brand,
ng Bayan, HAP, Learning and
COMEX, PGS, Development, PGS,
RBPMS) ARTA, HAP, Contact
Center ng Bayan, ISSP)

The following ten programs are implemented in partnership with other organizations:

Programs Partners
1) Performance Governance System Philippines Australia Human Resource and
2) PRIME-HRM Organisational Development Facility (PAHRODF)
3) SPMS through the Develop and Deploy a Culture
4) Competency-based Development Project Transformation in CSC – Change Management
5) Leadership and Coaching Brand for the PGS and other Various HR Initiatives
6) Learning and Development
Performance Governance System Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA)
7) Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) – Report Card United States Agency for International
Survey and ARTA Watch Development (USAID) through the Integrity for
Investments Initiative (i3) Project, United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), Coalition
Against Corruption, 31 CSOs
8) Honor Awards Program  Office of the President
 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
 Government Service Insurance System
 Duty Free Philippines
 Telebisyon ng Bayan
 Lung Center of the Philippines
 National Kidney and Transplant Institute
 Philippine Heart Center
 Philippine General Hospital
 Department of Tourism
 De La Salle University of Manila
 Far Eastern University
 Mariano Marcos State University
 Philippine Association of State Universities and
Colleges
 University of the Philippines
 Philippine Normal University
 Technological University of the Philippines
 Radio TV Malacañang
9) Contact Center ng Bayan NCC, BIR, DOH, DTI, PhilHealth
10) Information Systems Strategic Plan
17
 (ISSP)
 Computerized Examination (ComEx) DOST-Advanced Science and Technology
Institute (ASTI)
 PRC-CSC Web Verification System
Professional Regulation Commission
 IT-based Confidential Reporting of
Anomalies and Irregularities Information
System Inter-Agency Anti-Graft Coordinating Council
(IAAGCC) composed of Commission on Audit,
Office of the Ombudsman, Department of Justice

Criteria and guidelines on partnerships should be developed to address issues such

as amount involved in the partnership, existence of a partnership contract, allowed
signatories in partnership contracts, etc.

18