TERMINAL REPORT ON TRAINING

ON DATA COLLECTION
AND FIELD EDITING OF THE
2010 OWS AND 2009/2010 BITS
 Republic o f the Philippines

A D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R AND E M P L O Y M E N T
Bureau of L a b o r and Employment Statistics
3 Floor, DOLE Bldg., Gen. Luna St., Intramuros, Manila
rd

ISO 9001:2000 Certified

MEMORANDUM ^

FOR : T E R E S A V. P E R A L T A ^ C l J ^ ^ L . ^
OI^Director ^ J ^

FROM : M A N U E L LYLAOPAO J*
Chief L E O , EMSD % '

ASUNCION M. GAVILLA ^ r I 0
Chief L E O , L R S D • /

ROSA^R^^DGTFAJARDO
OlC-Chief L E O , L S S D

RE : T e r m i n a l R e p o r t o n N C R a n d O N C R T r a i n i n g s for B L E S
Surveys

DATE : A u g u s t 18, 2010

W e are pleased to submit the Terminal Report on Training on Data

Collection and Field Editing of the 2010 O W S and 2009/2010 B I T S . This report
is composed of two parts: Part I - Report for N C R and Part II - Report for
ONCR.

For your information.

Phone Numbers: 5273000 locals 310-319 E-mail Address: dolebles@yahoo.com or dolebles^manila-online.net

Telefax Numbers: 527-5506/527-9325/527-9324 Web Address: http:/rWww,bles.dole.KO¥.ph or www.nianila-online.net/bles
 PARTI

R E P O R T ON NCR ENUMERATORS' TRAINING

ON DATA C O L L E C T I O N AND FIELD EDITING OF THE
2010 OWS AND 2009/2010 BITS

/
 Training Report on
NCR E n u m e r a t o r s ' Training on Data Collection and Field Editing
of the 2009/2010 B I T S a n d 2010 O W S

I. TRAINING O B J E C T I V E

At the end of the training, the participants should be able to conduct field interview,
explain t h e items of inquiries and field edit the accomplished 2009/2010 BITS and 2010
O W S questionnaires.

II. METHODOLOGY

Selected BLES staff conducted the lectures and discussions on the various field
operations activities of the two surveys using powerpoint presentations. An open forum
followed after each session. T o further enhance the participants' knowledge on field work,
part of the training was devoted to the "Sharing of Experiences" presented by rehired NCR
Field Interviewers The knowledge w a s further enriched with the critiquing made by the
facilitators and participants on the "Mock Interview" group exercise presentations conducted
by selected Area Supervisors and the participants.

To be able to assess the performance of their respective enumerators, actual mock

interview evaluation w a s conducted for each enumerator after the training. This w a s
conducted to prepare the enumerators for the actual interview which some of the
respondents might require from them during field work.

III. P A R T I C I P A N T S A N D V E N U E

The Training was conducted for two (2) days on August 7-8, 2010 at the BLES Activity
Area. T h e participants comprised a total of 58 Job Order-Field Interviewers w h o will
conduct the field enumeration in the National Capital Region and concerned BLES staff who
will act as Area Supervisors and Reviewers for the NCR field operations.

IV. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE TRAINING

The training program commenced with the welcome remarks made by the O I C -
D i r e c t o r o f t h e B L E S , Dir. Teresa V. Peralta. She stressed the important role that the
participants as enumerators will play in the overall success of the conduct of both the
2009/2010 BITS and 2010 O W S . She also emphasized the need for the field enumerators
to validate and ensure the completeness and accuracy of data that respondents will provide
to enable the BLES to maintain its name as an ISO-certified agency that provides quality
data to its clients. She remarked that the two-day training program will basically equip them
not only on the details about the two surveys but also on the tips on how to collect the data
and conduct the field interview.

The first day of training course focused on the presentation and discussion of the 2010
Occupational Wages Survey (OWS). T h e participants also gained insights on the actual
conduct of survey from the lectures conducted on Operational Strategies; Administrative
Concerns: and Survey Documents and Forms.

For th e second day, the morning session w a s devoted to the presentation and
discussion of Parts 1 to V of the 2009/2010 BLES Integrated Survey (BITS). The
presentation basically focused on the five (5) modules of the BITS, namely: Survey on
Specific Groups of Workers; Occupational Shortages and Surpluses; Balancing Work and
Family Responsibilities and Working Time Arrangements; Occupational Safety and Health;
and Occupational Injuries and Diseases. Each discussion also emphasized on how to
conduct field edit and check the completeness and consistency of entries in the
accomplished questionnaire.
 The Sharing of Experiences as narrated by rehired NCR Field interviewers provided
the participants with the appropriate tips and techniques on how they can effectively ensure
cooperation from establishments and to properly equip them to efficiently handle the field
interview. The presentation on Mock Interview group exercises facilitated learning as the
participants not only learned the "do's" and "don'ts" of actual interview during the critiquing
portion but it also gave them the chance to express their views and opinions during the
exercises.

. HIGHLIGHTS O F THE MOCK INTERVIEW EVALUATION

The mock interview evaluation w a s conducted after the training. Of the 58 hired Job
Order-Field Interviewers w h o participated during the training, only 54 underwent mock
interview evaluation as four of them either did not report for work after the training or had
resigned before the conduct of mock interview.

During the mock interview sessions, Area Supervisors and Reviewers assessed the
performance of the respective enumerators assigned to them based on the following four (4)
criteria: Courtesy (25%); Knowledge (25%); Alertness (25%); and Communication (25%).
The Field Interviewers were rated as acceptable and highly acceptable for each of the
criteria depending on their performance, i.e., 15%-20% for acceptable rating and 2 1 % - 2 5 %
for highly acceptable rating. The following were the results of the mock interview evaluation:

• The enumerators got the highest evaluation on the area on courtesy as almost all of
them (53 or 98.1%) showed "highly acceptable" ratings on courtesy and politeness.
(Table 1)

• In terms of their level of knowledge and learning skills, 28 out of the 54 enumerators
(51.9%) were found to have "highly acceptable" ratings for having shown full
understanding and awareness of details of both the BITS and O W S .

• Less than half (46.3%) or 25 out of 54 enumerators were rated as "highly acceptable"
with regards to their alertness or their ability to respond without delay or hesitation in
responding to all the queries of the survey supervisors and reviewers. The remaining
53.7% were evaluated as "acceptable" in the said criterion.

• Five out of every 10 enumerators (26 or 48.1%) got "highly acceptable" ratings on
communication as they were able to convey and impart their ideas about the survey
clearly, concisely and logically in a highly acceptable manner, while the rest (51.9%)
were found to be "acceptable".

T A B L E 1 - M o c k I n t e r v i e w E v a l u a t i o n of N C R E n u m e r a t o r s

COURTESY KNOWLEDGE ALERTNESS COMMUNICATION

(25%) (25%) (25%) (25%)
RATING
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Acceptable
1 1.9 26 48.1 29 53.7 28 51.9
(15%-20%)

Highly
Acceptable 53 98.1 28 51.9 25 46.3 26 48.1
(21%-25%)

TOTAL 54 100.0 54 100.0 54 100.0 54 100.0

 In summary, only two out of every 10 enumerators (22.2%) got the highest overall rating
of 9 1 % - 9 5 % on all the four (4) criteria (courtesy, knowledge, alertness and
communication) while more than half (57.4%) had ratings ranging from 8 1 % - 9 0 % . Only
one (1) enumerator got a rating of 7 1 % - 75%. (Table 2)

T A B L E 2 - S u m m a r y of O v e r a l l R a t i n g on M o c k I n t e r v i e w

O V E R A L L RATING Number Percent

71%-75% 1 1.9

76% - 8 0 % 10 18.5

81%-85% 22 40.7

86% - 90% 9 16.7

91%-95% 12 22.2

TOTAL 54 100.0

VI. H I G H L I G H T S O F T H E TRAINING E V A L U A T I O N

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Unsatisfactory and 5 is Excellent, majority o f the 58

participants gave the resource persons an average rating of Satisfactory to Very
Satisfactory in the four criteria items as follows: Time Management - 3.78 to 4.29;
Arousing the Interest of the Participants - 3.55 to 4.26; Mastery of the Subject Matter-3.70
to 4.33; and Method and Skill of imparting Knowledge - 3.71 to 4.32. (Attachment: Table 1)

The presenters of the following topics were rated with the highest mean performance in
each of the four (4) criteria: Time Management - 2 0 0 9 / 2 0 1 0 BITS Part I (4.29); Arousing the
Interest of the Participants - 2009/2010 BITS Parts II & III (4.26); Mastery of the Subject
Matter - 2009/2010 BITS Part I & Administrative Concerns (both with 4.33); and Method
and Skill in Imparting Knowledge - 2009/2010 BITS Part I (4.32). (Attachment: Table 2)

About 8 4 . 5 % to 9 1 . 4 % of the participants believed that the session duration for the
presentations were just adequate. From among the five (5) sessions, Operational Strategy
was found to be the most adequate according to nine out of every 10 participants.
Meanwhile, the session on BITS w a s perceived to be the least adequate a m o n g the
sessions. (Attachment: Table 3)

When asked about the items in the Survey Questionnaire which they think should had
been thoroughly discussed, almost half ( 4 3 . 1 % for O W S and 50.0% for BITS) of the
participants believed that "Survey Editing Guidelines" should have been given more
emphasis. Other survey items cited include "Statistics To Be Generated" (36.2% and 34.5%
for both surveys); "Estimation Procedures" ( 3 1 % each); and "Survey Objectives and Uses of
the Data" and "Scope and Coverage" with 2 5 . 9 % , each for both O W S a n d BITS.
(Attachment: Table 4)

For t h e lecture on Operational Strategy, the participants felt that the topics on
"Collection and Field Editing of Questionnaires" and "General Information", e.g., EIN, PS/C,
PSOC, ATE, and Status Codes, should have been more thoroughly discussed based on the
comments of 50.0% and 36.2% of the respondents, respectively. (Attachment: Table 5)

With respect to Administrative C o n c e r n s , 4 1 . 4 % and 3 7 . 9 % of the participants

believed that "Work Allocation" and "Monitoring of Performance of Enumerators and Survey
Status"should have been thoroughly explained to them. (Attachment: Table 6)
3
 As for the presentation on Survey Documents and F o r m s , only the topic on
"Verification and Editing" w a s deemed important by a participant which she believed should
have been given more emphasis during the discussion. (Attachment: Table 7)

The following were the summary of comments and suggestions of the participants for
consideration in future trainings to be conducted:

• Some resource persons cannot be heard at the back making the lecture not clearly
understood; some resource persons must be well-prepared and confident in the
delivery of presentation (17.2%);

• More concrete, situational examples for each item of inquiry should be done instead
of reading from the powerpoint presentation (12.1%);

• More time should have been spent to discussion/explanation; clearer explanation of

technical terms (12.1%);

• More discussion on editing guidelines and effective tips/techniques on actual

interview (3.4%); and

• Need for prayer for every session for guidance (3.4%).

The complete list of comments and suggestions are enumerated under Attachment: Table 8.

Prepared by:

Y O L A M D A L. N A V E A
Supervising LEO

Date: August 18, 2010

Noted by:
\s

MANJUEL L. LAOP^AO A S U N C I O N M. G A V I L L A ROSARIO G. F A J A R D O . i

Chief LEO, EMSD Chief LEO, LRSD OlC-Chief LEO, LSSD W>\

/Training Report 2009-2010 BITS NCR Training

16 August 2010
/ TABLE 2 - Summary of Mean Performance Rating of Resource Persons by Criteria
CRITERIA

TOPICS Arousing the Method & Skill

Time Mastery of the
Interest of the in Imparting
Management Subject Matter
Participants Knowledge

2010 OWS 4.12 3.95 4.19 4.14

2009/2010 BITS - Part I (General Information) 4.29 4.24 4.33 4.32

2009/2010 BITS - Parts II & III (SSGW &

Occupational Shortages & Surpluses) 4.14 4.26 4.28 4.26

2009/2010 BITS - Parts IV-A & B (Balancing

Work And Family Responsibilities and
Working Time Arrangements/Occupational
Safety & Health 4.07 3.98 4.25 4.25

2009/2010 BITS - Part V (Occupational

Injuries and Diseases) 3.78 3.55 3.70 3.71

Operational Strategy 4.07 4,10 4.17 4.10

Administrative Concerns 4.16 4.25 4.33 4.20

Survey Documents and Forms 4,17 4.12 4.19 4.09

TABLE 3 • Evaluation of Participants on Session Duration

Duration of Session

SESSION SHORT ADEQUATE LONG NOT STATED

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

2010 OWS 1 1.7 51 87.9 3 5.2 3 5.2

2009/2010 BITS 1 1.7 46 79.3 3 5.2 8 ' 13.8

Operational Strategy 1 1.7 53 91.4 - - 4 6.9

Administrative Concerns 3 5.2 49 84.5 - - 6 10.3

Survey Documents and Forms 2 3.4 50 86.2 - - 6 10.3

2
 TABLE 4 - Topics in the Survey Questionnaire Which the Participants Think
Should Have Been More Thoroughly Discussed

2010 OWS 2009/2010 BITS

TOPICS
Number Percent Number Percent

Survey Objectives and Uses of the Data 15 25.9 15 25.9

Collection Authority 12 20.7 11 19.0
Confidentiality of Information 9 15.5 9 15.5
Scope and Coverage 15 25.9 15 25.9
Survey Design 12 20.7 6 10.3
Estimation Procedures 18 31.0 18 31.0
Statistics to be Generated 21 36.2 20 34.5
DorinHirih/ anH R o f o r o n r o PorinH 13 22.4 13 22.4
Editing Guidelines 25 43.1 29 50.0
General Instructions 12 20.7 7 12.1

TABLE 5 - Items in the Operational Strategy Which the Participants

Think Should Have Been More Thoroughly Discussed

TOPICS Number Percent

Duties and Responsibilities of Enumerators 12 20.7

Survey Respondents 9 15.5
General Information (e.g., EIN, PSIC, PSOC, ATE, Status Code) 21 36.2
Delivery of Questionnaires 11 19.0
Collection and Field Editing of Questionnaires 29 50.0
Field Verification 12 20.7
Flow Chart on Delivery, Retrieval, Verification and Review of
Questionnaires 16 27.6

TABLE 6 - Items in Administrative Concerns Which the Participants

Think Should Have Been More Thoroughly Discussed

TOPICS Number Percent

Work Allocation 24 41.4
Monitoring of Performance of Enumerators and Survey Status 22 37,9
Outputs and Terms of Payment 16 27.6
Pre-Termination of PBI Contract 6 10,3

TABLE 7 - Items in Survey Documents and Forms Which the Participants Think
Should Have Been More Thoroughly Discussed

TOPICS Number Percent

Verification and Editing 1 1.7

3
 TABLE 8 - Comments and Suggestions of Participants

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Percent

All instructors and speakers are all great; they teach well but some of them speak, too soft so that
1.7
they cannot be easily heard/understood .
All resource persons were all good on the mastery of the subject matter that they've discussed . 1.7
Almost all trainers are kind but not all are well-prepared. 1.7
It is better to give concrete examples on every category in the questionnaire. 1.7
Carefree trainers; happy to work with trainers and administrative staff; there is a need to focus more 1.7
time on discussions and lessons.
Discussion on samples should be precise for us to understand immediately. 1.7
1 would like to thank those trainers who imparted their knowledge to us. 1.7
The Field Operations Manual is helpful and comprehensive. 1.7
Need for further discussion on General Instructions; General Information and Field Editing. 1.7
Give more examples and situations that could help more in the understanding of listeners/audience. 1.7
Hopefully, next time, there will be more thorough explanation of the survey objectives and statistical
operations just in case the respondent ask us for a more detailed explanation of the purpose of 1.7
the survey. Thanks.
1 have learned a lot from attending the training. The lecturers are effective in imparting new 1.7
learning/topics,
1 hope next time we'll have additional days for the training. 1,7
1 think trainers should be very clear with their voices and should know how to deliver properly all the 1.7
stuff that needs to be discussed in order for us to learn.
1 would recommend a thorough explanation on the consistency of data and how they are related to
the given categories/items of inquiries. It would be better if there are actual computations shown. 1.7
There's a need for more situational examples. Thank you.
It was a little too fast, however, with a clear FOM provided, previous topics which were too general 1.7
for us could Still be recalled. 1 hope there will be a prayer before every session.
Job well done! 1.7
Make the discussions clearer. 1.7
Make the discussion livelier. 1.7
May 1 suggest that there should be more discussion on Editing Guidelines as well as on the
techniques on actual interview and more tips, strategies and pointers on how to conduct the 1.7
actual survey.
Nice orientation and training; good food; nice work and thank you. 1.7
Nice presentation; all topics were presented well. 1.7
No comments about training because we had same training in 2008. 1.7
Satisfied. No comments. 1.7
Please lang po. Pag-igihin nyo po ang pag-explain sa mahihirap na words. Salamat po. 1.7
Please upgrade sound system. Some speakers/resource persons are very soft-spoken. 1.7
Properly discuss and explain details. More time to stress some important points. 1.7
Sana sa next training, ipaliwanag po ng mabuti sa madaling paliwanag para madali naming 1.7
maintindihan, kasi yung iba binabasa lang po yung nasa projector.
Siguro, improve more on the discussion para mas madaling maintindihan tsaka siguro dapat 1.7
nagbigay ng mga examples at hindi puro theory o basa lang.

4
 PART il

REPORT ON REGIONAL SUPERVISORS' TRAINING

ON DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD EDITING OF THE
2010 OWS AND 2009/2010 BITS

i
 R E P O R T ON R E G I O N A L S U P E R V I S O R S ' TRAINING ON D A T A C O L L E C T I O N
A N D F I E L D E D I T I N G O F T H E 2010 O W S A N D 2 0 0 9 / 2 0 1 0 B I T S

I. TRAINING O B J E C T I V E

At the end of the training, the participants should be able to carry out the field
operations of the BLES surveys in their respective regions and train other provincial
staff/enumerators who will handle the surveys in their respective provinces.

II. METHODOLOGY

The training consisted of a series of lectures and discussion/open forum. T h e Chief

LEOs, Supervising LEOs, Senior LEOs and LEO III of subject matter divisions of BLES
acted as resource persons.

To assess the effectiveness of the training conducted, the participants were requested
to accomplish the Evaluation of Training for BLES Survey/s (FM-BLES 03-3.23) at the end
of the training session.

III. P A R T I C I P A N T S AND VENUE

The two-day training w a s held on July 29-30, 2010 at the Citystate Tower Hotel, 1315
A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila. It w a s attended by 3 ^ r e g i o n a l staff as shown below
composed of T S S D Chief and statistician/designated personnel w h o will be directly involved
in the supervision of the survey operations.

Region Name of Participant Position

CAR Emelita A. Ferrer TSSD Chief

Lorna Bacolong LEO III
I Abegail E. Legaspi Statistician II
Nathaniel A . Pineda II LEO I
II Menzie V. Valite LEO III
Ailene Amichelle D. Baccay Administrative Aide VI
III Jeremiah Joseph M. Borja Labor Information Officer
Jason P. Ocampo Information Analyst II
IV-A Predelma M. Tan TSSD Chief
Angela A. Lapis LEO III
Maricris G. Legaspi L E p III
IV-B Sharlene M. Palma LEO III
Nieves J. Abella LEO II
V Gracita M. Parado Senior LEO
Cyre M. Cabredo Statistician II
VI Salome O. Siaton TSSD Chief
Evangeline A. Indon Senior LEO
Amalia N. Judicpa LEO III
VII Maria Nancy Z. Abad TSSD Chief
Marites G. Mercado Supervising LEO
Hilkene E. Silvano Statistician II
VIII Flordeliz D. Geonzon TSSD Chief
Bernadita M. Velarde Planning Officer III
Shirley Ann B. Nebrija Statistician II
 (Cont'd)

Region Name of Participant Position

IX Leonora B. Almazan Statistician II

Edilberto M. Angeles, Jr. Administrative Aide VI
X Rodrigo A. Deloso TSSD Chief
Maria Lourdes M. Gayramara Statistician II
XI Reynaldo Dennis V. Badilles TSSD Chief
Cecilia S. Dayhon Senior LEO
Albert C. Horcerada Statistician II
Xli Fatima L. Bataga Senior LEO
Nelma B. Abillo Senior LEO
Caraga Genebelle B. Bal TSSD Chief
Lilian M. Solis Statistician II

IV. H I G H L I G H T S O F T H E TRAINING

The first day of the training started with a program at 9:00 A . M . with the Opening
Remarks of OIC-Director Teresa V. Peralta. She mentioned the significance of the surveys
in policy formulations. S h e likewise highlighted that to come up with well-meaning national
policies, it is imperative that data collected should be accurate and adequate. In conclusion,
she encouraged that the training should empower the regional supervisors to satisfy the
goals of the BLES' endeavors.

The first day was mainly devoted to the thorough discussions of the 2010 O W S and
2009/2010 BITS. The lecture on 2009/2010 BITS was broken down into the following: Part I
- General Information, Parts II and III - Employment and Occupational Shortages and
Surpluses, Parts IV-A and IV-B - Industrial Relations Practices and Part V - Occupational
Injuries and Diseases. Emphasis w a s given specifically on the editing guidelines for each
item of inquiry in the questionnaires particularly in the checking for completeness and
consistency of the entries.

Meanwhile, the second day w a s focused on the operational strategies, administrative

concerns and survey documents and forms related to the survey operations.

The following were the issues raised and the agreements reached during the training:

Issues Raised Agreement/s R e a c h e d

Use of excess funds from the previous
surveys
The shift of industry among establishments
sampled (e.g., from manufacturing to
retailing).
Applicability of the A u g 31 reference period
for O W S (the possibility of low compliance
especially among establishments w h o have
not yet effectively complied with the new
minimum wage orders/issuances).
Respective Regional Offices will have to draft
guidelines on the use of excess funds and
forward it to BLES for approval.
There will be no replacement for this scenario
as the replacements are already "built-in"- i.e.,
it already anticipates cases of spoilage, e.g.,
refusal, cannot be located establishments, etc.
To be guided accordingly, BLES will coordinate
with NWPC to come up with a list o f regions
that have already implemented the new
minimum wage orders/issuances a n d cascade
it to ROs.
 Issues Raised
With regard to Part 1 Item 4.1 question of
BITS: respondents might "rethink and get the
impression that the scope of bargaining unit
can include supervisors/foremen as it is listed
as one of the choices."
With regard to Part II Item 2.6.5 inquiry: SPES
and YEYE are not subsets of Item 2.6.5. They
should be treated separately.
Part II item 3 of Definition: T h e definition of
sub-contracting deviates from that of the Labor
Code.
Reference period of Part IV-B items 1 and 2
(June 30, 2010): T h e confusion stemmed from
whether the reference period pertains to
programs and policies implemented on June
30, 2010 or if it covers previous years.
Part IV-B item 4: Correct phrasing of the
question.
Reference period of Part IV-B item 4.
Electronic Survey (delivery and retrieval of
questionnaire thru e-mail)
If inconsistencies linger on OSH-related
items, can regional supervisors refer to the
annual medical report that establishments
submit to them?
Can survey and inspection be held
simultaneously?
The possibility of independent/private survey
firms to carry out the surveys. 1
Allocation of cash advance
V. HIGHLIGHTS O F THE TRAINING E V A L U A T I O N
The following were based on the perceptions of the participants on the different topics found
in the Training Evaluation. (Attachments A and B)
1. T h e resource persons were rated by the regional participants in terms of time
management, arousing the interest of the participants, mastery of the subject matter a n d
method and skill in imparting knowledge.
Agreement's R e a c h e d
The essence of the survey is to capture if this
kind of practice exists in the workplaces.
Instead of it being listed as 2.6.5.1, it shall
now be numbered as 2.6.6 (Persons Enrolled
in SPES and YEYE).
For conformity, "sub" will be droppectr-HeYice,
it shall now be read as c o n t r a c t i n g < j u ^ . J
Reference period should be understood as
"as of June 30, 2010." Hence, the inquiry/ies
of Part IV-B shall cover programs/policies
implemented on the previous years. T h e
logic behind this is the assumption that these
programs/policies are continuing in nature.
It should be read as: "Have your employees
availed of the following OSH-related
trainings/seminars conducted for the last two
(2) years?"
Since the operative phrase is "the last two (2)
years," the reference period then should
cover from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010.
BLES is not keen to do this as setbacks shall
persist: a) how to settle the issuance of the
delivery charge; and b) how to capture t h e
contact person's information.
Yes, but the annual medical report shall serve
as a guide only for checking purposes. The
respondent's answers reflected on the
questionnaire shall prevail over t h e annual
medical report.
No, as this might affect the veracity or quality
of respondents' answers to sensitive
questions.
This defeats the purpose of BLES' existence -
to do surveys.
Regional supervisors shall refer to t h e i r
respective Budget Officer if cash advance will
be allowed.
2. Gleaming from Tables 1 to 4 , resource persons earned a mean performance rating of
Very Satisfactory (3.78 - 4.36).

• Time management garnered Very Satisfactory ratings ranging from 4.12 to 4.36. A t
4.12, Operational Strategy received the lowest rating. Survey Documents a n d
Forms, in contrast, obtained the highest rating at 4.36. Lying between t h e
extremities were BITS, O W S and Administrative Concerns at 4.19, 4.21 and 4.32,
respectively. (Table 1)

• Ranging from 3.83 to 4.26, average rating for arousing the interest of participants
w a s deemed by respondents as Very Satisfactory. Survey Documents and Forms
got the highest mean at 4.26. It was followed by Administrative Concerns at 4.22 and
BITS at 4.02. Operational Strategy and O W S recorded the only Satisfactory Ratings
at 3.96 and 3.83, respectively. (Table 2)

• A Very Satisfactory rating was given to the resource persons in terms of the mastery
of the subject. Average ratings ranged from 3.96 to 4.39. O W S got the highest mean
at 4.39 while Operational Strategy got the lowest at 3.96. (Table 3)

• In terms of the method and skill in imparting knowledge, resource persons received a
mean performance rating of Very Satisfactory. Average ratings ranged from 3 . 7 8 to
4.26. Survey Documents and Forms got the highest rating at 4.26 while Operational
Strategy had the lowest at 3.78. (Table 4).

3. When asked if the time allotted for the discussions of each topic were just enough,
participants rated the session duration of the entire training to be just Adequate. Upon
tabulation, average ratings ranged from 1.93 to 2.03. (Table 5)

4. In general, only few participants noted that there are topics that n e e d a m o r e t h o r o u g h
discussion. Topping the list was Periodicity and Reference Period on BITS at 29.03%.
It was closely followed by Editing Guidelines on both t h e O W S and BITS at 2 5 . 8 1 % .
(Tables 6 to 8)

5. Two participants suggested that the following should be addressed: ,)

• Topics and annexes in t h e Field Operations Manual should have been properly
marked for easy tracking.
• Fonts used should highlight the main points/issues; graphical icons/pictures for
procedural/guidelines/notes.

Prepared by:

E L E N A M. DAGUII
Supervising LEO

Note
 ATTACHMENT B
Complete List of Comments/Suggestions of the Participants

I found the questionnaire very comprehensive and appreciate very much for
including the data/questions on employment demand 'coz its result can really be
used in our career guidance advocacy considering our presentation includes labor
market opportunities covering 2006-2010. Hence, I'm wishing for the success of
this survey.

Congratulations to BLES for a very exhaustive discussion of the topics/modules of

the training. Your efforts are highly appreciated. Thank you also for inviting the
TSSD Chief to this activity. It broadened my perspective of this activity; it m a d e me
appreciate your Bureau.

Pwedeng dagdagan ang budget ng supplies s o w e can buy a better portfolio for
the enumerator and the regional staff. Sana incentives will be bigger and should
include rank 2 or 3 or everyone; next training should be in Davao or Baguio.
Request for clearer/more specific guidelines in the Fund Utilization of savings and
cash incentive. Job well done!

The conduct of this activity is essential and crucial for the effective implementation
of the project. I would like to convey my appreciation to BLES and all speakers for
their generosity in imparting to the participants their stock knowledge for the
learning experience we acquired.

The conduct of the survey is essential for future policy implementation. However, in
some remote areas, enumerators can't be physically present during the
delivery/retrieval of the questionnaires and/or outside of the region, e.g., A R M M
(Tawi-tawi). Furthermore, internet connection is accessible everywhere in the
country; could it be possible for this survey to convert it to an online survey? N O T
EMAILS, but a w e b site/page that the establishments can fill-out all the necessary
questions of the survey form. Thus, simplifying our jobs, produce instant
result/reports and save maybe even bigger funds which can be used for other
significant projects.

Concise, informative and technical training; always pineapple juice during snacks
and meals, suggest for an alternative juice; nice food, presentations and
presenters.

Questions not in consonant with the Labor Code should be deleted to avoid
Confusion such as rank and file including supervisors.

For new comers, the time allotted is too short; hence, the lecturers were very fast
in presenting their topics.

Since the enumerators will be traveling for this purpose, they should be entitled to
GSIS insurance just like our SPES workers.

Venue of the briefing should also be conducted in Cebu or Davao.

Trainings in the future should be held somewhere outside Metro Manila.

Some indicators need to be reviewed like the indicator on rank and file and
supervisor union Qoint), HIV aids testing requirement for pre-employment as these
might send wrong signals to establishments.

Process flow chart could/may not be discussed anymore.

Workshops should be conducted after every session to assess the participants'

knowledge/learning from the training.

If it's possible, the conduct of the training for ROs be a week earlier before the start
of the regional briefing for enumerators and supervisors.

Congratulations! A n d the performance rating for regions worked well with us. W e
will use the rating to improve our services/performance in this 2009/2010 and 2010
O W S and in the future rounds of OWS/BITS.

For us new to this project, the discussion on some topics was too fast; w e could
hardly catch up. Next time, huwag madaliin. Do not presume that all participants
are familiar on the topics.

Requesting for proper coordination of schedule with the participants prior to the
activity proper. Nobody was there at the airport to meet us. Thanks!!

W E L L DONE. Good "Public Servants."

JOB W E L L DONE!!! Thank you.

So far so good. Very Informative.

ATTACHMENT A
T a b l e s 1 to 8
 T A B L E 1 - Average Rating for Time Management by Topic and Region
O N C R Training for 2010 O W S and 2009/2010 B I T S

Survey
Operational Administrative
Region OWS BITS Documents a n d
Strategy Concerns
Forms
Total 4.21 4.19 4.12 4.32 4.36

CAR 4.00 3.42 4.00 3.50 4.00

I 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
II 4.50 4.42 4.25 5.00 5.00
III 4.00 4.25 4.25 4.00 4.00
IV-A 4.00 3.66 3.50 3.67 3.67
IV-B 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
V 4.00 3.75 3.75 4.00 4.00
VI 4.50 4.42 3.75 4.50 4.50
VII 4.00 4.72 4.33 5.00 5.00
VIII 4.67 4.50 4.50 4.67 4.67
IX 4.00 3.67 3.75 4.00 4.00
X 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
XI 4.00 4.33 4.00 4.50 4.50
XII 4.00 4.00 3.75 4.00 4.00
Caraga 4.50 4.67 5.00 5.00 5.00
 T A B L E 2 - A v e r a g e R a t i n g for A r o u s i n g the I n t e r e s t of P a r t i c i p a n t s b y T o p i c and R e g i o n
O N C R T r a i n i n g for 2 0 1 0 O W S a n d 2 0 0 9 / 2 0 1 0 B I T S

Survey
Operational Administrative
Region OWS BITS Documents and
Strategy Concerns
Forms
Total 3.83 4.02 3.96 4.22 4.26
CAR 3.00 3.42 3.00 3.50 4.00
I 4.00 3.33 4.00 4.00 4.00
II 4.00 4.25 4.75 4.50 4.50
III 4.00 4.08 4.25 4.00 4.00
IV-A 3.33 3.21 3.00 3.67 3.67
IV-B 4.00 4.83 4.50 5.00 5.00
V 4.00 3.75 4.00 4.50 4.50
VI 3.50 3.83 3.25 4.50 4.50
VII 4.00 4.22 4.17 4.33 4.33
VIII 4.33 4.39 4.33 4.67 4.67
IX 4.00 4.00 3.50 4.00 4.00
X 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
XI 4.33 4.28 3.83 3.67 3.67
XII 3.00 3.92 3.75 4.00 4.00
Caraga 4.00 4.75 5.00 5.00 5.00
 T A B L E 3 - Average Rating for Mastery of the Subject by Topic and Region
O N C R Training for 2010 OWS and 2009/2010 B I T S

Survey
Operational Administrative
Region OWS BITS Documents and
Strategy Concerns
Forms

Total 4.39 4.20 3.96 4.30 4.33

CAR 4.00 3.75 3.00 3.50 4.00

I 4.00 3.33 4.00 4.00 4.00
II 5.00 5.00 4.75 5.00 5.00
III 4.00 4.50 4.25 4.00 4.00
IV-A 3.67 3.38 3.00 3.67 3.67
IV-B 5.00 4.83 4.50 5.00 5.00
V 4.50 3.92 4.00 4.00 4.00
VI 4.50 4.25 3.25 4.50 4.50
VII 4.67 4.44 4.17 4.67 4.67
VIII 4.67 4.44 4.33 5.00 5.00
IX 4.50 3.92 3.50 4.50 4.50
X 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
XI 4.33 4.28 3.83 3.67 3.67
XII 4.00 4.00 3.75 4.00 4.00
Caraga 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
 T A B L E 4 - A v e r a g e R a t i n g for M e t h o d a n d S k i i l in Imparting K n o w l e d g e b y T o p i c a n d R e g i o n
O N C R T r a i n i n g for 2010 O W S a n d 2 0 0 9 / 2 0 1 0 B I T S

Survey
Operational Administrative
Region OWS BITS Documents and
Strategy Concerns
Forms

Total 4.00 4.11 3.78 4.22 4.26

CAR 3.00 3.42 2.75 3.50 4.00

I 4.00 3.83 4.00 4.00 4.00
II 5.00 5.00 4.50 5.00 5.00
III 4.00 4.50 4.25 4.00 4.00
IV-A 3.33 3.16 2.67 3.33 3.33
IV-B 4.00 4.83 4.50 5.00 5.00
V 4.00 3.75 3.25 4.00 4.00
VI 4.00 3.92 3.50 4.50 4.50
VII 4.33 4.28 4.00 4.67 4.67
Vlil 4.00 4.44 4.17 4.67 4.67
IX 4.00 3.58 2.75 4.00 4.00
X 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
XI 4.33 4.11 3.83 3.67 3.67
XII 3.50 4.00 3.50 4.00 4.00
Caraga 4.50 4.80 5.00 5.00 5.00
 T A B L E 5 - A v e r a g e R a t i n g for D u r a t i o n of S e s s i o n by T o p i c a n d R e g i o n
O N C R T r a i n i n g for 2 0 1 0 O W S a n d 2 0 0 9 / 2 0 1 0 B I T S

Survey
Operational Administrative
Region OWS BITS Documents and
Strategy Concerns
Forms
Total 2.01 1.93 2.03 2.03 2.03
CAR 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
I 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
II 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00
III 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
IV-A 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
IV-B 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
V 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
VI 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
VII 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
VIII 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
IX 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
X 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
XI 1.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
XII 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Caraga 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
 T A B L E 6 - Items W h i c h Participants Think Should Have B e e n D i s c u s s e d More Thoroughly About the S u r v e y s by Region
ONCR Training for 2010 O W S and 2009/2010 BITS

Survey Objectives Collection Confidentiality of Scope and 0 1 1 r\/o\ H o c i n n

Estimation
Region and Uses of Data Authority Information Coverage O U I Vfcry L/t?9llJI 1
Procedures

OWS BITS OWS BITS OWS BITS OWS BITS OWS BITS OWS BITS

Total 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 2 4 4 3 1
CAR - - - - - 1
I - - - - - -
li
ii

III - - - - - - -
IV-A 1 1 2 2 1
IV-B - - - - - - - - - - - -
V 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 - -
VI - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 -
VII - - - - - - - - - - 1
VIII - - - - - - - - - - - -
IX - - - - - - - - - - - -
X - - - - - - - - - - - -
XI - - - - - - 2 1 - - - -
Xli - - - - - - - - - - -
Caraga - - - - - - - - - - - -
 T A B L E 6 - Items Which Participants Think Should Have B e e n D i s c u s s e d More Thoroughly About the S u r v e y s by Region
ONCR Training for 2010 O W S and 2009/2010 BITS (cont'd)

Statistics to be Periodicity and General Specific

Editing Guidelines Others**
Region Generated Reference Period Instructions Instructions*

OWS BITS OWS BITS OWS BITS OWS BITS OWS BITS OWS BITS

Total 3 4 4 9 8 8 6 5 3 2 0 2

CAR - - - 2 - 1 - 1 - -
i - - - - 1 1 - - 1 1 - -
II - - - 2 1 1 1 - - - - -
III - - - - - - 1 1 - - - -
IV-A - - 1 1 2 2 1 1 - - - -
IV-B - - - 1 - - - - - - - -
V 1 1 2 1 - - - - - •j ***
VI 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 - -
VII - 1 1 - - - - - - - - -
VIII - - - - - - - - - - - -
IX - - - 1 1 1 1 1 - - - -
X - - - - - - - - - - - -
XI - - 1 1 - - - - - - - -
XII - - - - - - - - - - - -
Caraga - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Some participants checked Specific Instructions but did not specify anything on the space provided for.
* More examples, try simulation activities clarify reference periods/ dates hold consultation with ROs prior to finalizing survey tools.
* Discussion of Part IV-B.
 T A B L E 7 - Items on Operational Strategy Which Participants Think Should Have B e e n D i s c u s s e d More Thoroughly by Region
O N C R Training for 2010 O W S and 2009/2010 B I T S

Collection and
Duties and
Survey General Delivery of Field Editing of Field Review of
Region Responsibilities Others
Respondents Information Questionnaires Accomplished
\ of Enumerators
Questionnaires
Verification Questionnaires

Total 2 1 3 3 6 2 2 1

CAR - - - - -
I - 1 -
ii
it

III - - - -
IV-A 1 1 1 1
IV-B - - 1 - - - - -
V 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 -
VI - - - - 1 - - -
VII - - - 1 - - - -
VIII - - - - - - - -
IX - - - - 1 - - -
X - - - - - - - -
XI - 1 - - - - 1*
XII - - - - - - - -
Caraga -
- - - - - - -

* Flow chart