E-COMM: STRENGTHS & OPPORTUNITIES

7:24 AM Unknown 0 Comments

It is in fact that electronic communication specifically internet towers above all kinds of media. However, in a midst of developing municipalities tacked on the traditional customs and inferiority ruled over by modern practices, modernity is still on the state of torpidity.

DSWD has a long history that begun after the World War II when social welfare was materialized as an important responsibility of the government. It started in 1915 when it was firstly called the Public Welfare Board (PWB) that served to study and regulate all government and private entities engaged in social services. Throughout the years, it underwent major revamps from one constitution to another and from one administration to another, and had been into major modification as far purposes, identity, and scopes were concerned. Only in 1987, that it was named Department of Social Welfare and Development under the executive order 123 signed by then President Corazon C. Aquino. Consequently, the Revised Administration code of 1987 established the name, organizational structure, and functional areas of responsibility of DSWD and further defined its statutory authority.

The Department of Social and Welfare has a remarkable move to alleviate poverty through a conditional cash transfer program which not only benefited the poorest households but also uplifted the rate of employment in our country, providing opportunities to those who dream to be public servants and leaders of the future. The program is named the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) which serves a total of 4,436,732 households nationwide.

Analyzing the technological communication used by the program, it created its own Management Information System (MIS) that handles the database and its entire data processing requirement. It manages the conveyance of information from the national, to regional, and to municipal levels. Furthermore, it validates errors and correction to maintain the efficiency of the program implementation.

The program has also established three major systems to systematically organize its implementation, address its immediate issues and concerns, and ensure that the program has effectively met its objectives. These are Compliance Verification System (CVS) which records the compliance to the program conditions, Beneficiary Update System (BUS) which records and reports changes in beneficiaries’ data, and the Grievance Redress System (GRS) which captures and resolves complaints and queries about the program.

However, despite these systems, it would not be concluded that it runs smoothly and perfectly. The systems are still managed by humans, and therefore are certainly not exempted from errors such as misspelled names and basic information during encoding. Complaints directed to GRS also might take time as it is channeled through letter, email, and SMS. Addressing complaints cannot be easily resolved without a due process and proper investigation, and that is one of the things that everyone within the program must patiently bear with.

Nevertheless, the program in general can be applauded on its dedication to serve and meet the purposes of social protection. The system wherein it exists is an implication of its commitment to transparency and integrity in the service. More than the use of modern technology to fasten the service to the people, it continues to embrace the modernity for development. Most people now regardless of social status use internet and cellphone to communicate. The open communication line between the program by providing different medium whether in email, letter, or SMS and even verbal communication to raise their questions and address their concerns is a good manifestation of first, empowerment to speak up, and second of equal treatment of the beneficiaries capacity to communicate.

On the other hand, it's transparency to the people can be a detrimental factor. Its transparency can be subjected to the infliction of personal interests and perhaps of political interest. The common problem in the program is the inclusion error or the inclusion of non-eligible households as beneficiaries and the exclusion error which is the exclusion or the non-inclusion of the potentially eligible households who are later on verified as poor. The mere existence of these errors is an indication that truly; there are pitfalls inherent wherein the program exists. And the idea of political intervention should never be disregarded as a mere shallowness, but rather a serious matter.

Whatever the circumstances are, in almost a decade of its implementation, the program coverage of 79 provinces, 143 cities, and 1484 municipalities is not easy to monitor. Yet, made it systematic and responsive to a need for continuous advancement with its support to new technology and modernity where everything commensurate possibilities.

References: