Department of Social Welfare and Development

GUIDE ON THE DSWD PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION

CY 2013

I. RATIONALE

In 2013, a harmonized/master Performance Contract (PC) template has been developed to

specify the annual performance goals of each Office/Bureau/Service (OBS). This was the
result from the Department’s articulation of its medium term goals known as the Strategic
Goals (SG) and the cascading of SGs along with the existing performance frameworks to
the different Offices, Bureaus and Services.

This is also in relation to the Performance Evaluation System for Third Level Officials or
the adoption of Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System (CESPES)
mandated by the Career Executive Service Board (CESB), prescribed rating forms must be
duly accomplished and submitted to the CESB by first quarter of the succeeding year of the
rating period. Failing which, officials will not have a performance rating on record.

The performance management system (PMS) has four (4) stages: (1) Performance Planning
and Commitment; (2) Performance Monitoring and Coaching; (3) Performance Review and
Evaluation, and (4) Performance Rewarding and Development Planning. The third stage
is the performance review and evaluation where accomplishments are evaluated based on
performance indicators identified for commitments made during the Performance Planning
and Commitment stage.

The Department aims to complete its Performance Review and Evaluation (or assessment)
by first quarter and submit the required performance rating of its Officials by the set
deadline to the CESB. The result of the evaluation will also be a basis for the conditions and
requirements of the grant of the performance-based bonus (PBB) for CY 2013.

This shall serve as guide for the conduct on the implementation of the third stage in DSWD’s
performance management process.

II. OBJECTIVES OF THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF OFFICE

PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMACE CONTRACT OF
OFFICIALS

General:

The objective of the Performance Review and Evaluation (PRE) session is to assess
performance of officials based on targets and indicators committed in their CY 2013 Office
Performance Contract (OPC) Individual Performance Contract (IPC) or Adjusted PC forms.
1
 Specifics:

1. Identify issues and recommendations that will input into the performance contract for the
next rating period;
2. Determine the performance rating on the Office and Individual Performance Contract
and Review (OPCR/IPCR) form for CY 2013 of Head of Offices;
3. Identify recommendations and best practices experienced by the OBS.

III. COVERAGE, PARTICIPANTS AND DURATION

1. The PRE Session will cover performance of Heads of Field Offices, Bureaus and
Services for CY 2013.

2. They key documents that will be used in this session are:

• OPCR and IPCR with self-rating;
• Scorecards from pertinent OBS’ in the Central Office;
• Validating Tool from OBS and FOs (for OPCR)
• Satisfaction Rating Guide from OBS and FOs (for IPCR)
• Guide on Computing Performance Ratings (version 3)

3. The Performance Review and Evaluation shall be conducted with the following:
• The Head of Office, Bureau or Service (HOBS) as the Ratee;
• The Cluster Head as the final Rater/evaluator of accomplishments to approve the
PCR;
• Panel Members (for the Field Offices) composed of the following:
o Representative from different clusters as the resource person on the
accomplishments of the FOs and assist the Rater/s in validating claims of
the Ratee.

4. The duration of the session is set for about two (2) hours per Office.

IV. PROCEDURE FOR THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION SESSION

A. Pre Evaluation

For Field Offices Only

1. The HRDB shall request OBS to prepare their scorecard for the Field Offices and
shall furnish copies of PCs to all OBS.

2. All OBS at the Central Office shall review the OPC and IPC of Regional Directors
and prepare their scorecard specifying the target being monitored, accomplishment
and proposed rating and reason for rating such. This shall also include the OBS
monitoring of the guidelines, memorandum circulars and other documents they
requested for comments/inputs/recommendation from the FOs, the description of
2
 substance on their comments and the proposed ratings (a sample template in Annex
1).

3. The scorecard shall be submitted to the OSM and HRDB on set deadline for
reference during the PRE session.

For both Field Offices and CO OBS

4. To aid the OPCR PRE session, the OBS at CO shall rate the FOs while the FOs
shall rate the CO-OBS to gauge the overall performance of the office using the
Validating Tool (Annex 2). To aid the IPCR PRE session, the OBS shall rate the
FOs while FOs shall rate the CO-OBS to gauge the level of satisfaction about the
Official’s ability to deliver the expected leadership and managerial performance that
the position requires using the Satisfaction Rating Guide (Annex 3).

5. The Cluster Head/Rater shall set the schedule for the PRE session for each OBS.

6. All HOBS shall prepare his/her OPCR and IPCR with self-rating and shall email
this to the PDPB and HRDB 2-3 days before the PRE session for review on the
computation of ratings.

a. Accomplish the OPCR/IPCR (Annex 4). The Form is the OPC/IPC with additional
three (3) major columns to indicate:
o Actual accomplishment (e.g. absolute number and percentage of actual
accomplishment with the universe (60% or 60 out of 100), qualitative
description and date submitted/accomplished);
o Ratings (Quantity, Quality, Time and Average Ratings) (See Annex 5 for
Guide on How to Compute ratings);
o Remarks or comments on the targets and performance indicator,
challenges encountered, facilitating factors, suggestions, etc.

b. Accomplish the self-assessment for LMCAT (refer to Annex 6 for instruction).

This shall include the critical incidents or evidences on demonstrated behaviours
during the rating period.

B. Actual Evaluation

B.1 OPCR and IPCR PRE Session

1. The Secretariat shall open the session by reading the ground rules, introducing the
participants and respond to any questions that may be asked about the process.
Afterwhich, the floor shall be given to the HOBS.

2. The HOBS shall present to the panel the Office/Regional Situationer specifying its
profile and Office inputs such as number of human resources, budget allocation, and
difficulties encountered, among others.
3
 3. The HOBS shall present to the panel the performance target, actual accomplishment
and self-rating.

4. The Rater/Coach-Monitor may require the HOBS to identify its Best, Good,
Problematic performances and may request evidence to support the self-rating
claimed by the HOBS.

4. The panel members may clarify/comment on the accomplishments or the evidence

presented in aiding the Rater to score the accomplishment. Panel members should
avoid dwelling into how or why a performance target was set; providing lengthy
technical assistance or recommendations.

5. The Cluster representatives shall take note on their areas of concern and/or respond
to them accordingly.

6. The Coach-Monitors shall take note of key points and ensure that these are
addressed in the next performance rating period.

7. The Rater/Coach-Monitor shall request feedback/suggestion on the following:

• Assistance needed on challenges encountered
• Master PC template

8. The Panel members, Coach-Monitor and Rater shall approve the OPCR and IPCR
by affixing their signature.

The Assistant Secretary of the OSec Cluster or the Undersecretary of the IDG shall take
over the session should the Secretary be unable to stay or attend.

B.2 LMCAT Feedbacking

Attached is a separate Guide for LMCAT rating and feedbacking for Officials (Annex 7).
This shall include the critical incidents or evidences on demonstrated behaviours during
the rating period.

C. Post PRE Session

1. The HOBS shall submit the approved PCRs to the PDPB, OSM for their reference
and HRDB for submission to the CESB on the CEPES rating of Officials.

2. After the retrieval of the LMCAT from the superior, peer and subordinate raters,
the HRDB/HRDU/PMS focal shall process the computation on the LMCAT ratings
that will compose percentage depending on the type of office the total rating of the
Officials.

3. The HRDB/HRDU/PMS focal shall forward the Official’s DSWD internal rating for his/
her concurrence. The same shall be forwarded to Coach and Rater for concurrence.
4
 4. The HRDB/HRDU/PMS focal shall submit to the CESB the approved IPCR with the
Behavioral Competency Scale (BCS) ratings for processing of the CESPES rating of
Officials.

5. Once CESB issued the CESPES rating to concerned official, official shall provide the
HRDB/HRDU/PMS focal copies of his rating for file and reference.

ANNEX 1

Objective: The scorecard provides the matrix of accomplishments of Field Offices with
the corresponding rating from OBS standards on the key result/targets committed in the
PC and the 1-7 rating scale. (The OBS may revise their own scorecard similar to the
5
content of this sample).

Instruction: Indicate the performance target and the actual accomplishment specifying
the number of output, quality description, date submission receipt, proposed rating and
reason for rating such or summary of feedback to FOs accomplishment.

SCORECARD FOR FIELD OFFICES

CY 2013
[NAME OF OBS]

Field Key Result/ Actual Propose Reason for

Office Performance Accomplishment d Rating Rating/ Remarks
Target/ Indicator (Quantity, Quality and
Date Receipt)
CAR
I
II
III
IV-A
IV-B
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
CARAGA

Prepared by:

(Name of Head of OBS)

(Office)

6
 Instruction: The Validating Tool aims to gauge the overall performance of an office. It shall be used to provide a general assessment on the Field
Office’s accomplishments based on the work dealings/relationship/encounters of your office with the FOs last year (CY 2013). Please provide your
feedback in the space provided in terms of Quantity, Quality and Time. If in case you do not have the capacity to rate the FO, indicate N/A, not
applicable. Please submit the completed Tool to the HRDB.
ANNEX 2

VALIDATING TOOL FOR FIELD OFFICES

January to December CY 2013

FO/ Quantity Quality Timeliness

OBS
How many % of If you are to give a How would you rate If you are to give Were the outputs If you are to give a
the total target score of 1-7, with 7 the overall Quality a score of 1- delivered within score of 1-7, with 7
outputs relevant being the highest, of outputs of the FO 7, with 7 being the target period of being the highest,
to your concern or what will be your based on your concern the highest, submission? How what will be your
deliverables did the overall score for or deliverables? Is it what will be your many % of the time? overall score for
FO accomplish? QUANTITY? relevant? Reliable? overall score for On time? Ahead? TIMELINESS?
Useful? Innovation? QUALITY? Late?

Prepared by:

(Name and Signature of EXECOM//MACOM/RD Rater)

(Office)
7
Instruction: This Satisfaction Rating Guide is a tool to gauge the level of satisfaction about the RD’s ability to deliver the expected leadership
and managerial performance that the position requires. Using the 1-7 point scale, with 7 being the highest, please rate RDs in terms of quantity,
quality and time. For the strengths and areas for improvement, kindly provide feedback on the columns provided by indicating situations/incidents
that you have observed. If you do not have capacity to rate the Ratee, indicate N/A (not applicable). Please submit the completed Guide to HRDB.

ANNEX 3
SATISFACTION RATING GUIDE
January to December CY 2013

Officials FO/ Quantity Quality Timeliness Strengths Areas for

OBS Improvement
In a scale of 1- In a scale of 1- In a scale of 1- What do you
7, with 7 being 7, with 7 being 7, with 7 being commend most in In what leadership
the highest, how the highest, how the highest, how his/her leadership/ areas would you
satisfied are you satisfied are you satisfied are you managerial style, if recommend her to
on the percent of on the relevance, in his/her ability any? improve on, if any?
accomplishment reliability and to respond/deliver
that the RD innovativeness targets on time?
delivered through of the Programs,
his/her managerial Activities and
skills? Projects that the RD
led?

Prepared by:

(Name and Signature of EXECOM//MACOM/RD Rater)

(Office)

8
Instruction: This Form is the Office/Individual Performance Contract with additional three (3) columns. Pleas fill-in the columns and indicate the
following:
a. Actual Accomplishments: e.g. actual number or percentage of current accomplishment (60% or 60 out of 100); actual qualitative
accomplishment based on performance indicator (Guidelines/Report/comments drafted/for finalization/endorsed to OBS-CO/Secretary);
b. Ratings (for Quantity, Quality, Time and Average Rating)
c. Remarks or comments on the performance indicator, challenges encountered to accomplishing the target, facilitating factors, suggestions, or
proposed changes, etc.

ANNEX 4
OFFICE PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AND REVIEW
(Name of Office/Bureau/Service)
January-December CY ____

I, _______________________, commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets and indicators for my Office.

KEY RESULT AREA/ Success/ Performance Remarks

Weight Allotted Accountable Rating
Major Final Output/ Indicators/Measures Actual Accomplishment
Budget Division/Unit Qn Ql T Ave.
Program, Activity, Project (Quantity, Quality, Time)

Final Average Rating

Adjectival Rating

Prepared by: Concurred by: Rating Approved by:

(Name of Ratee) (Name of Coach Monitor) CORAZON JULIANO-SOLIMAN

Director/ Date: _________ (Position)/ Date: ______ (Position)/Date:________

9
 INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AND REVIEW
(Name of Office/Bureau/Service)
CY ____

I, _______________________, commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets and indicators for my duties.

KEY RESULT AREA/ Success/ Performance Weight Remarks/Coaching

Program, Activity, Project/ Indicators/Measures Actual Accomplishment Rating
Deliverable (Quantity, Quality, Time) Qn Ql T Ave.

Final Average Rating

Adjectival Rating

Prepared by: Concurred by:

(Name of Ratee) (Name of Coach) (Name of Director/HOBS)

(Position) (Position) (Position)
Date:_________ Date:_________ Date:_________

10
 Annex 6

INSTRUCTION FOR SELF-RATING

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGERIAL COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT TOOL
(L&M CAT)

I. Objective

The Leadership and Managerial Competency Assessment Tool (LMCAT) used behavioral
indicators derived from the Competency-based Leadership Development Program (CBLDP)
intervention by the Capacity Building Bureau. This tool aims to measure the leadership and
managerial competencies of officials.

II. Instruction

1. Please accomplish the needed information by filling out all the blanks. Kindly put your
name as the Ratee – Name of Official being Rated.

2. On the statements indicated, please provide your self-assessment by encircling the

number that corresponds to the frequency you demonstrated the behavior. The scale are
defined as:

• 7 = Always exhibited the behaviour

• 6 = Almost always exhibited the behaviour
• 5 = Very often exhibited the behaviour
• 4 = Oftentimes exhibited the behaviour
• 3 = Sometimes exhibited the behaviour
• 2 = Rarely exhibited the behaviour
• 1 = Never exhibited the behaviour
• No basis for rating/Unable to answer

3. On the Evidence box, kindly cite critical incident/s or behaviors that you exhibited during
the rating period.

11