The development of tools for the operationalization of the KPA framework is a work in progress. The tools listed here have been applied and have proven useful in six PEF case studies examined using the KPA lens.
Anatomy of Success and Vulnerability
This is a summary table which quickly organizes and shows the strengths and vulnerabilities in a community’s intangible and tangible assets, and in external assets it has access to. Development workers who are familiar with a project, when shown its “Anatomy of Success and Vulnerability”, readily appreciate the value of the tool and the new perspective behind it, for presenting new or additional insights why the project is succeeding and cues where it may fail in the future.
The sample below applies the tool in a bridge financing for education project in Northern Samar, Philippines.
Capitals/Assets and Vulnerabilities before Project Implementation: SHIFT Project
+ Access rights – Right of the poor to quality education;
+ RA 6728 Education Service Contracting, a law subsidizing poor students to study in private schools;
+ SHIFT nuns and volunteers are known, accepted and respected in the communities, schools, marketplaces in Mondragon and Catarman;
+ SHIFT’s credibility and ability to mobilize local, national and international volunteers (ex. German volunteer nurse, Jesuit Volunteers and youth volunteers);
+ High goodwill of SHIFT allowing it to secure favors and obtain benefits from different individuals and groups.
+ RSCJ Congregation’s national and international network of support;
+ SAA owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Catarman;
+ PEF interested to support the project, Northern Samar being the number one PEF priority province
- SHIFT involved in many programs mostly supported by volunteers; tendency to spread itself too thinly;
- SHIFT lacked policies, procedures and systems;
- Absence of formal MOA between SHIFT and other project partners like the University of Eastern Philippines for the agricultural technology assistance and the Municipal LGU for their “tractor” counterpart;
- Nominal involvement of the Diocese in SAA affairs.
+ Regular subsidy from DepEd under the ESC contract;
+ Some tuition fees collected.
- Economically poor majority: cannot afford private school’s tuition fees, transportation and other incidental costs of schooling; high (15%) dropout rate;
- ESC subsidy remittance always months late;
- Teachers not paid in full or on time, had to borrow from loan sharks or rediscount their salary slips
+ Presence of loosely organized communities assisted by SHIFT in other programs
- Community organizations are weak, lack leaders, not so positive previous experiences in group processes
+ Poor students and their parents value and aspire for quality education;
+ Dedicated SAA teachers as proven by their willingness to work despite irregular pay in the past;
+ Deeply committed educators: two RSCJ sisters who teach not only as an exercise of profession but as a vocation;
+ Many successful SAA alumni within and outside the community;
+ Presence of agriculturists from the University of Eastern Philippines College of Agriculture
+ Resourceful SHIFT Executive Director.
- Communities assisted by SHIFT lack capable leaders and members;
- SAA teachers preoccupied with making ends meet, demoralized and not very focused on the task of teaching.
|SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CAPITAL||
+ Good relations between SAA administration / teachers and the community
- Superstitious, even some SAA teachers and non-teaching staff believe in superstitious practices;
- Absence of bayanihan or community spirit in farms and communities
|PHYSICAL CAPITAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE||
+ SAA has an old school building;
+ SHIFT has an old dilapidated jeep that can be repaired;
+ SHIFT has a 2,000 square meter farm land that can be made productive;
+ Existence of a good national highway and bridges.
- School buildings, houses and farms vulnerable to natural disasters;
- No regular public utility service (jeep or tricycle) that could bring students from the different barangays to school.