COMMUNITY SELECTION STEPS The criteria used for the community selection consist of ‘must’ criteria and ‘wish’

e criteria used for the community selection consist of ‘must’ criteria and ‘wish’ criteria. It is essential
Project IWASTO
OVERVIEW
In order to select a partner community for Project IWASTO, the team has developed a Community
Selection steps and tools made to assess, evaluate, compare, and prioritize candidate communities.
The following are the step by step processes for the community selection:
PHASE DESCRIPTION
Meetings with local authorities to
identify areas to focus on in the
Step 1: City LGU selected city. Community profiling tool
Consultation can be used here to collect data from
the City LGUs or during desktop
research.
Cross check the information collected
Step 2: Community
from data base (community profiles,
Identification (Screening)
SWM Plans, etc).
Project briefing and consultation of
possible project partnership to the
Step 3: Touch base of
community candidates. Schedules of
Screened Community
possible ocular visit should also be
Candidates
requested given that the community
shows interest of the project.
Collection of information using the
Step 4: Field Data
Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) to gather
Collection for Community
baseline information and SWM
Assessment (Fieldwork)
systems in the community.
NOTE
Contact through emails or calls
‘Must’ criteria can be used here
to screen candidate
communities
Contact through emails or calls.
Simplified Project
Brief/Presentation is needed
here.
Prepare RRA tool same with the
tool/guide questions used during
the Community Assessment in
Baseco. It should also satisfy
the ‘wish’ criteria.
that the relevant ‘must’ and ‘wish’ criteria are identified and agreed before candidate communities
are identified to eliminate bias.
‘Must’ criteria are used for the initial screening phase of the community selection. All the criteria
under this part must be fully satisfied for a candidate community to be considered further. The ‘must’
criteria for this specific project are:
1. Availability of operational MRF in the community
2. Considered as an ISF/estero community
3. Waste contributor to Manila Bay
Once the screening of candidate sites has been completed using the ‘must’ criteria (refer to Step 2:
Community Identification), a shortlist can be drawn up of communities for further evaluation.
Community specific information will be required for evaluating the communities against the ‘wish’
criteria.
Referring to Table 2, ‘wish’ criteria are arranged in four categories. Under each category is set of
‘wish’ criteria for a meaningful decision analysis. The categories and criteria are as follows:
CATEGORY CRITERIA
- Barangay LGU SWM Programs & Projects
- SWM Ordinances
Community Efforts
- SWM System & Good Practices
- Willingness of the Community
- Core Group Availability
Leadership - Involved People’s Organizations
- Barangay LGU Prioritization of SWM
- Availability of operational technology
- Broad base of volunteers (SWM related activities)
Resources
- Presence of Partner Organizations (NGOs) in the
Community
Community Political Climate
Table 2

Analyze collected data and use the

Step 5: Selection of the Decision Analysis Matrix for the
Partner Communities prioritization and selection of the
finalists.
Table 1
DECISION ANALYSIS MATRIX TOOL
Below are the reference for the scores per criterion for the Decision Analysis Matrix:
To be able to make an unbiased community selection, a Decision Analysis Matrix is used where
community criteria are scored for each of the candidate communities. After identifying the community
selection elements, the next step is to assign weighting factors to each criterion. Presence of Community SWM Project/Programs
SCORE CRITERIA
Decision Analysis Matrix for site selection is shown in Table 3. It is suggested to use ranking scores 1 No existing SWM Plan
of 1 to 4, as well as weights of 1 to 4. Scores for each of the criteria are recorded in the matrix for
No existing SWM Plan BUT has implemented at least 1 SWM-related program or
each of the candidate communities. Once completed with the scoring, the scores are multiplied with 2
project
the weights and the answers recorded in the column in Table 3 marked SxW (Score x Weight). The
3 BLGU has SWM Plan BUT for compliance only
SxW results are totaled for each of the sites and the preferred community should be the one with the
highest total score. 4 BLGU has SWM Plan and at least 1 SWM Project that is well implemented & monitored

SWM System & Good Practices

CATEGORY 1: COMMUNITY EFFORTS

SCORE CRITERIA
1 No established SWM System
2 BLGU has established SWM System BUT for compliance only and not effective
3 BLGU has established SWM System that is effective for the community
BLGU has established SWM System & Good Practices recognized by other
4
communities

SWM Ordinances
SCORE CRITERIA
1 No existing SWM ordinance nor drafts for submission
2 BLGU has drafted SWM ordinance/s for submission BUT no existing SWM ordinance
3 BLGU has at least 1 SWM ordinance BUT for compliance only
4 BLGU has at least 1 SWM ordinance that is well implemented & monitored

Willingness of the Community

SCORE CRITERIA
1 No one attends nor participates in any SWM Activity of the BLGU
2 Only the officials and personnel of the BLGU attend in any SWM Activity
Officials and personnel of the BLGU, and members of a People Organization attend in
3 any SWM
Activity
4 SWM Activities are well participated by the members of the community

Table 3

SCORING: DECISION ANALYSIS MATRIX

 Core Group Availability Availability of Operational Technology
SCORE CRITERIA SCORE CRITERIA
1 No available core group for SWM in the barangay 1 No available tech in the community
2 Community has an available SWM core group BUT is not recognized by the BLGU
Community has an available SWM core group administered by the BLGU BUT for 2 There is an available technology but is not operational
3
compliance only
CATEGORY 2: LEADERSHIP

4 BLGU has a working SWM core group that functions effectively 3 There is an available and operational technology but is not in use for the last 6 months
4 There is an operational and currently in use technology

CATEGORY 1: RESOURCES
Involved People & Organizations
Broad base of volunteers (SWM related activities)
SCORE CRITERIA
1 No People’s Organization present in the community SCORE CRITERIA
Presence of a People Organization - related to SWM, in the community BUT works
2 1 No identified volunteers
independently
Presence of at least 1 People’s Organization - related to SWM, recognized by the 2 Volunteers are from the BLGU only; may be appointed only
3 3 Volunteers are from the POs, community-based NGOs, and BLGU
BLGU
4 People’s Organization and BLGU work together effectively for any SWM efforts Active volunteers from different sectors and organizations; whole community are
4
involved and willing to volunteer
Barangay LGU Prioritization of SWM
SCORE CRITERIA Presence of External Parter Organizations (NGOs)
1 SCORE CRITERIA
2
1 No external partner organizations
3
Community has an external partner organization BUT sees barangay as study area
4 2
only
Community has an external partner organization BUT sees barangay as beneficiary
3
area only
4 Community has a strong relationship with external partner organizations