What is meant by participatory in a community development?

From the word participatory itself where, people have been given opportunity to be involved
in deciding how something is done in their organization/work or even in their community. When an
organization decides to take on a community intervention - whether a full -fledged service program
or a one-time campaign to accomplish one specific goal - it can often increase its chance of
success by using a participatory planning process.
A participatory approach is one in which everyone who has a stake in the intervention has a
voice, either in person or by representation. Staff of the organization that will run it, members of
the target population, community officials, interested citizens, and people from involved agencies,
schools, and other institutions all should be invited to the table. Everyone's participation should be
welcomed and respected, and the process shouldn't be dominated by any individual or group, or
by a single point of view.
The important thing to remember here is the word participatory. The use of that term implies
not just that you'll ask for someone's opinion before you do what you were going to do anyway, but
rather that each participant becomes an important contributor to the planning process.
A true participatory approach is one in which everyone's perspective is considered. That
doesn't mean that people can't challenge others' assumptions, or argue about what the best
strategy might be. It does mean, however, that everyone's thoughts are respected, and it isn't
necessarily assumed that the professionals or the well -educated automatically know what's best.
Everyone actually gets to participate in the planning process, and has some role in decisionmaking.
In general a participatory approach advocates actively involving the public in decisionmaking processes, whereby the relevant public depends upon the topic being addressed. The
public can be average citizens, the stakeholders of a particular project or policy, experts and even
members of government and private industry.
Give at least 2 methods in participatory approach in barangay development
planning and describe each thoroughly
Participatory approaches in theory have developed over the years from extractive onesided appraisals (Rapid Rural Appraisals (RRA)) to mutual two sided approaches such as
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). PRA describes a family of approaches and methods to

enable rural people to share, enhance, and analyse their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan
and to act, to monitor and evaluate. (Chambers (1997) p105 109)
Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA), which make use of these
instruments, have become-fashionable in projects that are process-oriented. While it is beyond the
scope of this study to elaborate on the differences between PRA and RRA, according to
Chambers3 they can be placed on a continuum with at one end RRA, which is an instrument for
data collection and learning by outsiders, and at the other end PRA, which is meant to enable local
people to conduct their own analysis. In principle, the same appraisal methods and tools can be
used in both RRA and PRA exercises. The main differences relate to the behavioural roles played
in each by outsiders and insiders; in other words, to how and by whom these methods are used in
the field.

1. Rapid Rural Appraisal

Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) is a qualitative survey methodology in which a multidisciplinary
team is used to formulate problems for agricultural research and development. The approach
emerged in the 1970s as a more efficient and cost-effective way for outsiders to learn about
communities, and particularly about agricultural systems, than through classical techniques such
as large-scale social surveys or brief rural visits by urban professionals. RRA consists of a series
of techniques for quick and dirty research undertaken in the belief that the results generated,
while of less apparent precision, will have greater evidential value than classic quantitative survey
techniques. The method does not need to be exclusively rural nor rapid, but it is economical of an
outsider researchers time.
A. Theoretical Background and Guiding Principles
Rapid Rural Appraisal is guided by a refined set of principles that require knowledge and skill to
apply:
Optimizing trade-offs researchers are expected to carefully balance the quantity, relevance,
accuracy and timeliness of the information acquired, as well as optimizes actual use of the data
collected.
Triangulation researcher use more than one technique/source of information to cross-check
answers and undertake research as part of multi-disciplinary teams so as to increase the range of
information collected.
Learning rapidly and progressively although research is undertaken rapidly in comparison
to classical survey methods, RRA should be conducted in a relaxed manner that emphasizes
creativity, curiosity, and conscious exploration. RRA should be undertaken on an iterative basis
through the flexible use of methods, be open to improvisation, take advantage of opportunities as
they arise and cross-check findings.
Learning from and with local people this means learning directly, on-site, and face-to-face,
gaining from indigenous physical, technical and social knowledge.
Farmers perceptions and understanding of resource situations and problems are important to
learn and comprehend because solutions must be viable and acceptable in the local context, and
because local inhabitants possess extensive knowledge about their resource setting.

B. Techniques for Rapid Rural Appraisal

As with all participatory approaches, there is no one recipe by which RRA may be applied.
Rather, RRA responds to the different contexts in which it is used, enabling researchers to take a
systematic rather than a standardized approach to understanding problems and identifying
opportunities for improvement.
A common design for a RRA, however, may be identified. Often implementation of this
approach involves moving through the following series of activities:
1. Selection of a multi-disciplinary research team;
2. Training of research team members in the techniques to be used as part of the researchthis
step is essential for achieving a consistent set of approaches to data collection;
3. Development of a checklist of issues to serve as the basis for questions;
4. Random selection of interviewees from various households/farmers and key informants;
5. Recording data in a form that will be useful to subsequent surveys over the longer term;
6. Discussing and analyzing data with team members in order to reach a consensus on what has
been learned and what remains unclear; and
7. Rapid report writing in the field, as any delay may result in loss of valuable information and
insight.
In undertaking these steps, researchers may select from a variety of tools (described
in Section 5), including:
Review of secondary sources, such as aerial photos;
Direct observation, foot transects, familiarization, participation in activities;
Interviews with key informants, group interviews, workshops;
Mapping, diagramming, brief aerial observation;
Biographies, local histories, case studies;
Ranking and scoring, as a quick means of finding out an individuals or a groups list of
preferences and priorities, identifying wealth distribution and understanding seasonal changes;
Time lines; and
Short simple questionnaires, towards the end of the process.
In undertaking RRA, as with other participatory and research processes, it is essential that the
researcher works to minimize the influence of his/her own biases on the information collected and
the conclusions drawn. To offset these biases, individuals undertaking a RRA should seek to
undertake this work in a relaxed manner, and focus on listening to the information being provided
by participants as opposed to lecturing. Researchers are encouraged to probe issues raised by
participants instead of passing to the next topic, and to ensure that they seek out poorer and less
powerful people to identify their concerns and ideas.
C. Advantages

RRA provides researchers with a quick, efficient and cost-effective approach for quantitative
and qualitative data collection, analysis and interpretation that helps to cope with the complexity,
diversity and interdependency of factors influencing various development issues. As an iterative
process, it provides researchers with an opportunity to ask relevant questions as an interview
progresses. As well, the use of triangulation allow researchers to: use a variety of tools and
techniques to understand a common issue; integrate different disciplines within the same team;
and draw information from a range of people representing different segments of a population.
D. Dangers and Drawbacks
The range of techniques used as part of a RRA can be effective in collecting timely and
relevant information, but fundamentally this remains an extractive, externally-driven process. The
information collected is retained, assessed and used by the outsiders rather than by the
individuals and communities involved in the research.
It is important to recognize as well that many researchers who use standard RRA methods
claim that they are using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), when the participation is restricted
to provision of information to the researcher by the community. The simple test is to examine what
value added participation is providing and who owns the product. If the community draws a map
because you ask them to, its RRA. If they realize that the map belongs to them, and want to keep
it for their own use, then its PRA.
2. Participatory Rural Appraisal
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) emerged in the 1980s and involves the direct participation
of community members in rural planning using different techniques such as diagrams and maps.
PRA builds on Rapid Rural Appraisal, but moves much further towards a more holistic approach to
participatory development, adding some more radical, activist perspectives. Its more
comprehensive approach reflects PRAs original developed in East Africa and South Asia. The
approach has been successfully applied in a variety of contexts, including environmental
management.
PRA has been defined as a family of approaches, methods and tools designed to enable local
people to formulate and analyze their situation in order to plan, act, monitor and evaluate their
actions (Chambers 1994: 953). The underlying concept is that local people are capable of
analyzing their own realities and that the outsiders do not dominate and lecture; they facilitate, sit
down, listen and learnthey do not transfer technology; they share methods which local people
can use for their own appraisal, analysis, planning action and evaluation (Chambers 1997:103). In
other words, external experts are mere facilitators of the development process.
A. The Three Pillars
The three pillars of PRA are mutually reinforcing. The process of PRA and its methods are
strengthened when field staff share food, live together and learn (by exchanging information and
experience) with the community. PRA methods may be used by facilitators to engage groups of
the community in all stages of the project cycle: identification; analysis; prioritisation; planning;
monitoring and evaluation. Communities may not have much free time (particularly women) and
may also be sceptical of development workers asking them questions about what they would like,
due to unmet expectations in the past. Group activities are used as a fun way to generate

enthusiasm and commitment to the PRA process in the community. The facilitators try to ensure
the following:

make discussions open rather that closed

involve groups as opposed to just single people

visual rather that verbal communication

compare rather than measure existing and planned development.

These attributes are detailed further in Chambers (1997, P146-150)

The correct behaviour and attitude is essential to supporting the pillars of sharing and methods.
Chambers (1997, p134) identified that:Personal demeanour counts, showing humility, respect, patience, and interest in what
people have to say and show; wandering around and not rushing; and paying attention,
listening, watching and not interrupting. Having the confidence that they can do it, and
transmitting that confidence.
The Rhetoric of the Participatory Rural Approach (PRA)
PRA done well generates synergies: the three pillars methods, behaviour, and attitudes, and
sharing and partnership reinforce each other; participatory training sets the style for participation
in the field; and adoption of the behaviour and principles of PRA, like the methods, can spread and
catalyse other good changes. Empowerment is through identifying the weak and enabling them to
gain in skills, confidence and knowledge.

They then analyse, monitor and evaluate, make

presentations, become consultants and trainers, organize themselves, and negotiate resolution of
conflicts. (Chambers, 1997, p210)
The Reality of Participatory Rural Approach
Chambers (1997) identified that bad practice, can be analysed under three heads:

top-down fashion and spread

behaviour, attitudes and training

Field practice and ethics.

These are not unique to PRA but have been highlighted by it.

They are detailed in the

following sections. The following sections use the publication of Chambers (1997) as the main
source.
Top down fashion and spread
1. PRA has been demanded by donors on projects and has been made to go to scale too fast,
resulting in the label being spread without substance.

2. Quality has suffered from the very top-down centralised system, which PRA seeks to modify
and reverse.
3. The behavioural, professional and institutional implications of PRA have not been
understood, or if understood not internalised.
In the authors experience, for PRA and its principles to be truly adopted by organisations,
executive members need to be included in the learning process along with the field workers, who
need the organisational support to be effective in responding to the communities needs. The
reason for major changes, such as; longer time-frames; use of software as opposed to hardware
indicators and programme rather than project funding need to be fully understood at all levels of
the organisation.
Behaviour, attitudes and training
In good PRA, participatory behaviour and attitudes matter more than methods. To confront
behaviour and attitudes is harder than to teach the methods.
Bad practice has been propagated by two common traps:
1. Training has been didactic rather than participatory, in classrooms or hotels rather than in
and with communities, through teaching rather than experience, and through lectures rather
than practice. Behaviour and attitudes should be stressed more than methods.
2. Manuals have been written. Source-books with examples and ideas can be useful.
Stepwise sequences also make sense for some topic PRA processes. But the formalisation
of manuals with set procedures can fossilize and codify, often in the name of quality.
Manuals are called for and composed. Paragraphs proliferate as intelligent authors seek to
cater for every condition and contingency. As texts lengthen, so too does training. The
more there is on paper, the more reading and lecturing become the norm, and the more
inhibited and inflexible participants become in the field. Big manuals and bad training go
together. (Chamber, 1997, p212)
In other words, training should provide participants with a guide (e.g. demonstrating the use of
types of tools in relation to the project cycle) but should emphasise facilitation not dominance, also
creativity, flexibility and innovation as opposed to rigid exercises to tick off boxes.
This places a large portion of the responsibility and control with the field workers.

This

decentralisation of power may be obstructed by cultures, personalities, accounting systems in the

aid chain etc. Section 2.3.3.1 details the different types of decentralisation.
Field Practice and Ethics
Particular attention should be paid to the following bad practices during training:-

 Dominating
Dominant and superior behaviour is the most widespread error damaging participatory processes:

Verbally, through lecturing, shouting down, interrupting, criticising, contradicting, preaching,

pontificating and putting forward their own ideas, telling lowers what they ought to think, and

being boring and overbearing.

Non-verbally, through dress, accoutrements, body language, facial expressions or hiding
behind dark glasses. (Chambers, 1997, p213)

In the authors experience as a PLA trainer, this was one of the most difficult things to transfer
from theory to practice. Experienced government workers in particular may have worked for many
years in a hierarchial system within a heriarchial society. Recognition of a persons status (by
position, education,age etc) was culturally significant.

Asking them to set aside their usual

behaviour which asserts their authority may prove threatening and uncomfortable. Time spent
during a single training course may not be sufficient to change years of autocratatic, behaviour
and attitutude.

Secondment of government field staff to the NGO and collaboration on

programmes were considered as ways to reinforce good practice in facilitation. Even NGO staff
(who may be used to a more didactic teaching style) need to be reminded frequently of the
principles of facilitation. The open management style within the NGO can make it seem less
threatening, by showing by example that respect does not have to be lost when a facilitation rather
than dominance is adopted.
Rushing
In practice, PRA facilitators often perhaps usually, take too little time: they fail to explain who
they are, why they have come, what they can do, and what they cannot do; they hurry to get on
with the methods, not taking time to earn trust and gain rapport. Later they fail to make time to
interview the map or interview the diagram. (Chambers, 1997, p 213)
The reasons found by the author to contribute towards taking too little time were:

Pressure to cover a certain number of tools a day due to limited, project-based funds.
Pressure from the community to finish early (particularly for the women) to allow them to

return to work (even in the less busy seasons for farmers).

A lack of enthusiasm amongst the NGO staff in response to the occasional lack of
enthusiasm in the community. Training needs to cover strategies to recognise and deal
with this.

Routines and Ruts

Especially in going to scale repetition breeds regular habits. Routines dig ruts, PRA facilitators
have shown signs of slipping into unvarying standard practices, overlooking other options and
missing the creativity of inventive interaction. (Ibid)

The author found that just telling participants during training that they could be creative and
invent their own tools or adapt existing tools was not sufficient to make this happen in practice.
This was due maybe to a lack of confidence with the new, unfamiliar technique.

However,

innovation did not naturally develop later as they became more familiar with the PLA process. The
initial training should provide the opportunity for the participants to increase their confidence in
experimenting with designing and creating their own tools, before maybe showing them existing
tools.
Gender and upper-upper bias
Differences between genders, groups, ages and occupations are easily overlooked. Those left
out are the lowers women, the poor, the very old, children, those of inferior status, the marginal,
the destitute, the disabled, refugees, out-casts. It is then the reality of local uppers that comes to
count. (Ibid)

Splitting groups into men, women, youth proved effective in creating a safe environment for
them to express themselves openly. When the groups come together to compare findings, the
women and youth had the confidence to present their findings because they spoke as a group
rather than as individuals. This was a starting point for capacity building amongst marginalised
groups.
Taking without giving
PRA methods have frequently been used for extractive research. As uppers, outsiders can often
induce local people to give up time to processes from which it is the upper who will mainly benefit.
It is true that the lowers, the analysts, may enjoy and be empowered by discovering their own
abilities and knowledge. But as with all research involving local people, there are ethical questions
about unequal relationships and the cost of peoples time. (Chambers, 1997, p 214)
The author found in their experience that fostering local ownership of the PRA process was
very important to try and address this issue of unequal relationships. This was done through
facilitators believing that they can do it and handing over the stick; encouraging the groups to
make their own record of the activities; and encouraging the community to use the records as
active planning tools (e.g. using the social map to plan and record changes in the community over
time)
Arousing unmet expectations
PRA methods and processes can engage local people for long periods in intense and creative
activities. Again and again, these lead to expectations of future action, especially where appraisal
and planning are involved. Again and again, outsiders and outside agencies have been unable to
respond, or have failed to honour their pledges. While this is not a new experience to most

communities and not peculiar to PRA, it remains an issue for continuous concern and selfquestioning among facilitators. (Ibid)
It has been the authors experience that in a country where the government has money but
has problems managing it, there is an opportunity for NGOs to play an advocacy role. If the
priorities of the community fell outside the sector that the NGO was involved in (i.e. Primary Health
Care (PHC) with Water, Sanitation (W & S) and hygiene promotion) then attempts were made to
link members of the community (Women, men and youth) with the chairman of the local
government (with whom, the major decision making lay). This was aimed to contribute to the
capacity building in the community, empowering them to do continue for future needs they may
identify.
The above bad practices if adopted by small SNGOs when relating to communities using
the DRA and/or by NNGOs when relating to Small SNGOs in partnerships can result in a lack of
local ownership. This in turn may lead to a lack of maintenance where the state is unable to
undertake this themselves. Unsustainable programmes are likely to result under these conditions.
B. Theoretical Background and Guiding Principles
The following principles guide the implementation of Participatory Rural Appraisal (Narayan,
1996: 9-10):
Capacity building by empowering the local community.
Utilization of results collected data is useless unless it is utilized.
Short-cut methods short-cut methods may yield reliable and relevant information under time
and financial constraints.
Multiple methods inclusion of different perspectives and various methods can help ensure
that the collected information is complete and reliable.
The expertise of the non-expert usually local people are more knowledgeable about their
environment than the external experts. Their interest, abilities, preference and knowledge needs to
be acknowledged and used accordingly during the entire life cycle of the project.
These principles reflect PRAs fundamental focus on recognition that knowledge is power,
and emphasize on ensuring that knowledge arising from a participatory intervention is shared with
and owned by local people. The validity of local knowledge is reinforced and the monopoly on
information being held by outsiders is broken. The PRA process transforms researchers into
learners and listeners, respecting local intellectual and analytical capabilities.
PRA focuses to large degree on the process through which research and/or a development
intervention occurs. A properly implemented PRA gives enhanced attention to the inclusion of
marginal and vulnerable groupswomen, children, aged and destituteand ensuring their effective
participation in development planning and implementation. It also relies upon extensive and
creative use of local materials and representations so as to encourage visual sharing and avoiding
the imposition of external representational conventions.
C. Techniques for Participatory Rural Appraisal

PRA uses various systematic methods to enable people to express and share information,
stimulate discussion and analysis, and assist participants to organize and initiate changes to a
particular problem. The choice of methods or techniques used depends on the issue being
examined and the context in which the PRA is taking place; there is to prescribed method for
conducting a PRA. Box 4 provides a sample of the methods that can be used when conducting a
PRA, divided into four classes of activities:
group and team dynamics methods;
sampling methods;
interviewing and dialogue methods; and
visualization and diagramming methods.
Descriptions of some of these tools are provided in Section 5. In determining the techniques
to use to assist participants to organize and initiate changes to

a given problem, a researcher or facilitator should seek methods that:

have specific and positive impactstechniques that energize, empower and mobilize the
relevant people;
optimize cost and time, while also providing ample opportunity for analysis;
emphasize teamwork, bringing together a mix of outsiders and insiders, women and men, and
experts from various disciplines;

 are systematic, to help ensure validity and reliability (such as through partly stratified sampling
and cross-checking); and
Enable facilitators to measure and evaluate the impacts of the techniques applied using
quantitative, qualitative and participatory methods.

Although the process of a PRA varies with the context, the steps below provide a guide that
may be used when applying this approach (adapted from Brown and Wyckoff-Baird 1992 a quoted
in IIED, 1994):
1. Select a site and gain approval from local administrative officials and community leaders;
2. Conduct a preliminary site visit (steps 1 and 2 could include a community review and a planning
meeting to share the purpose and objectives of the PRA and initiate dialogue between all parties
as well as full participation);
3. Collect both secondary and field data (spatial, time-related, social, technical), and share
information with selected communities. In this stage, facilitators may:
start with a mapping exercise to stimulate discussion and raise enthusiasm and interest,
providing an overview of the area/community, and helping to deal with non-controversial
information;
undertake transect walks and seasonal and historical diagramming exercises;
engage in preference ranking, which can be used to focus the intervention and as an ice-breaker
for groups interviews; and
undertake wealth ranking once participants are confident with the process.
4. Synthesize and analyze data;
5. Identify problems and opportunities to resolve them;
6. Rank opportunities and prepare land maps and resource management plans (a basic work plan
for all members of the community);
7. Adopt and implement the plan; and
8. Follow-up, evaluate and disseminate any findings.
D. Advantages
PRA allows researchers and development workers to learn about a community and develop
appropriate interventions through the use of an approach that is flexible and highly responsive to
individual difference, situational changes and emerging information. The techniques employed,
particularly visual tools such as mapping and calendars, are effective in encouraging participation
by quieter individuals, members of minority groups (e.g., women), and those unable to read. They
also enable researchers to collect a large amount of information in a relatively short period of time.
E. Dangers and Drawbacks

The primary challenge of PRA is that the approach alone does not provide communities
with decision-making authority or input into project management. Although PRA has been put
forward a means of empowering people to take control of their own knowledge and use it in a
manner that will provide them with benefits, the approach can (and is) be used in manner that:
is externally driven, with the PRA being undertaken to justify intervention plans determined by
outside project managers, agencies, NGOs and government officials;
is formulaic and not responsive to or respectful of the specific context in which the PRA is being
undertaken;
raises expectations that something will be done to address a problem, which, if no follow-up
occurs, can lead to local communities seeing PRA as a transient, externally-driven development
process; and
does not respond to the potential threat to less powerful members of communities resulting from
a PRA that challenges local vested interests through the social analysis conducted.
Who participate in the decision making process in neighbourhood and the
city/ municipality as a whole
The ideal answer here is everyone who is affected by the proposed intervention, but that's
seldom possible, or even desirable. You may be talking about thousands of people, too many for
an effective planning process. In reality, there should be strong and effective representation for
everyone involved, including:
Targets of Change
Targets of change are the people at whom the intervention is aimed or whom it is intended
to benefit. That could be very specific (e.g. teen mothers, for a job training program aimed at teen
parents) or very general (the community as a whole, for a smoking prevention and cessation
initiative aimed at everyone in the community).
There are really two groups to be considered here:

Members of the target community, both those on whom the intervention is specifically
focused, and others who share their culture, age, language, or other characteristics.
People whom the target community sees as significant opinion makers. They may be
members of the target population itself, or outsiders - clergy, advisors, former community
members who now move in circles of power, politicians, etc. - whom people in the target
community trust and rely on.

Agents of Change
Agents of change are the people who make or influence policy or public opinion. These
include actual policy makers, but also encompass people influential in the community at large, who
can help or block an intervention by their support or opposition.
Policy makers
Local elected or appointed officials
State or federal elected or appointed officials who have influence in the community or over
the issue at which the intervention is aimed.

If elected officials agree to be involved in your planning, they'll often send aides to
represent them. This can be preferable to the officials themselves attending, since the aides often
have a great deal of influence over their bosses, and are also more likely to have the time to
participate fully.
Local public agency heads (welfare, e.g.) who actually administer policy in the community. If
they're involved from the beginning, they may be able to bend rules or otherwise alter their
procedures to smooth the way for the intervention. University professors or researchers who are
viewed as experts on the issue in question are also involve.
Influential people in the community

Members of the business community - There are a number of good reasons to try to involve
the business community: They tend to be practical, often a helpful trait. They also tend to be
conservative, so that if they support the effort, their credibility - and, as a result, that of the
intervention itself - may be high among other conservative elements in the community. They
are often directly affected by such issues as illiteracy, employee health, insurance, the
environment, etc., and so may be quick to see the need for an intervention. Last but not
least, they often have access to money, which may be important to sustaining the
intervention over time.
Clergy and the faith community - In many communities, clergy wield great influence, and
many see involvement in community issues as part of their spiritual mission. Faith-based
groups, because of their cohesiveness, their sense of purpose, and their moral standing,
can be powerful forces in a community.
Natural leaders, those whom others respect and listen to
The media or others who have a public platform.
Directors or staff of other organizations affected by the problem or issue. Many of these
people may be highly respected or well known in the community.

A community intervention may involve a number of organizations, public agencies and

services, and other groups. A community initiative to offer treatment to substance abusers, for
instance, could involve, among others:

Schools
Police
Local hospitals, clinics, and health maintenance organizations
Services for youth
Mental health centers
Private therapists
Employers
United Way

Interested members of the community

These might include parents, youth, or school personnel, for instance, for an intervention
dealing with youth. Many seniors have the time, the desire, and the experience to be excellent
community volunteers. People with a personal or professional interest in the issue may also want
to participate - parents whose children have had drug problems, graduate students, retired
teachers or doctors.
Members of the organization itself

Administrators and line staff, volunteers, current participants, board members, and
supporters.

PROGRAMS AND SERVICES OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Barangay Development Council is the main responsible body in implementing,
monitoring and evaluating the programs and projects identified in the plan. The BDC members
should thus be equipped with the necessary skills, knowledge and attitudes in program
implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Integrative, comprehensive and multi-sectoral approach
The composite team decided that the framework to be used in barangay planning shall be
the framework used in city development planning.
The vision, mission and development priorities of the city were also reviewed during the training to
level-off and integrate the elements in the barangay development plans to the wider framework
which is the city framework.
The following are the development sectors wherein development plans were formulated and
priority programs and projects were identified:
1. Physical Development Plan
land use
Road network
Drainage and Flood Control System Development
Utilities (potable water and electricity)
2. Environment Management and Housing Development
solid waste
river protection and conservation
garden city (parks and open space)
3. Economic Development Plan
Employment and Livelihood
Livelihood and Employment Center Development Program
Manpower Development Program
Livelihood Development Program
Cooperative Education and Development Program
Tourism and Culture
4. Health Development
Health Facilities Development Program
Comprehensive Health Care
5. Gender and Development
Participation of women
Livelihood and income opportunities
Awareness on Productive and Reproductive rights
Use of GAD budget
6. Education
Educational facilities development program
Sports and Recreation
7. Public Safety

8.

9.

Crime suppression and prevention

Law enforcement
Fire protection and prevention
Risk and hazard management
Protective facilities development program
Street lighting
Social welfare
Community Outreach
Welfare and relief Program
Public Assistance Program
Social Welfare Facilities Development Program
Detention and Reformatory Institution Development Program
Special Collaborative Program
Vocational development program
Residential care and rehab program
Governance and Institutional Development
Development administration
resource mobilization
peoples participation in governance
transparency and accountability
Organizational development program
Capability building
Institutional facilities
Strengthening of peoples participation in governance
Barangay development
Barangay facilities
Comprehensive barangay development program
Government finance
Revenue generation program

As for the small sector in the community which is the Barangay, it is responsible for
providing the following basic services and facilities to its constituents:
1. Agricultural support services which include planting materials distributions system and
operation of farm produce collection and buying stations;
2. Health and social welfare services which include maintenance of barangay health center
and day care center;
3. Services and facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solid
waste collection;
4. Maintenance of katarungang pambarangay;
5. Maintenance of barangay roads and bridges and water supply systems;
6. Infrastructure facilities such as multi-purpose hall, multi-purpose pavement, plaza, sports
center, and other similar facilities;
7. Information and reading center; and
8. Satellite or public market, where viable.
Consistent with the basic services and facilities that a barangay is mandated to provide,
the following projects and activities should be given priority consideration:
a. Solid waste management which may include purchase of related equipment, truck and
compactors, as well as purchase of land for sanitary landfill purposes;

b. Purchase of lots for hospitals, health centers, day care centers and similar facilities which
may include construction, repair and/or maintenance of such facilities;
c. Purchase of lot for resettlement of squatters, including construction of housing units and
facilities;
d. Activities in support of the Food Security Program, and the Livestock Dispersal, Fisheries
Development and Fish Culture Farming Programs;
e. Initiatives in support of Cooperatives Development;
f. Construction, maintenance and/or repair of post-harvest facilities, irrigation and other
agricultural production systems;
g. Construction, maintenance and/or repair of local roads and bridges;
h. Construction, maintenance and/or repair of water and sewerage system, as well as, power
and communication facilities; and
i. Construction, maintenance and/or repair of public buildings which may include purchase of
equipment necessary in the implementation of infrastructure undertakings.