SCHOOLS DIVISION OF BISLIG CITY

Box 12. GAD Checklist for Designing and Evaluating Education Projects
PAPs: Conduct of Division Workshop on the Preparation of Budget Proposals for th eFY 2024
Program Owner/ End-User: Cristita L. Manada Score for
DONE? (col. 2) an
Element and item/question Results or Comments
NO PARTLY YES YES Item/Elem
(col. 1) (2a) (2b) (2c) ent3)
(col. (col. 4)
Project Identification and Planning
1.0 Participation of women and men in
project identifi cation (max score: 2; for 1.33
each item or question, 0.67)
1.1 Has the project consulted and involved the 8-point agenda includes delivery of
women in the problem or issue that the social services but should explicitly
intervention must solve and in the 0.33 include the empowerment of women. The
development of the solution? (possible scores: program owner is a woman, and the
0, 0.33, 0.67) approving authority is also a woman

1.2 Have women’s inputs been considered in

the design of the project? (possible scores: 0, 0.67 The activity proponent is a woman
0.33, 0.67)

1.3 Are both women and men seen as Generally stated as "beneficiaries" but
stakeholders, partners, or agents of change? 0.33 both men and women parents should be
(possible scores: 0, 0.33, 0.67) mentioned
2.0 Collection of sex-disaggregated data No mention. Should mention that the
3.0 genderrelated
and Conduct of gender analysisprior
information and to participants list will be encoded in the
0.00 BCDMIS and will pre-register via
identification
project designof gender issues
(possible scores:(see box 3)
0, 1.0, no mention of gender
bit.ly/bcdprereg analysis
to increase based on
score
(possible
2.0) scores: 0, 1.0, 2.0) Has a
the demographic or the constitution of the
Has the analysis
gender project tapped been sex-disaggregated
done to identify
participants, please conduct pre-
data andissues
gender gender-related
prior to information
project design? from OR, 0.0
registration.
made mention (score may increase gov't
of "beneficiaries", in the
secondary
does
Project the and primaryof
discussion
Design sources at the project
development
4.0 Do
Gender Post-Conduct/PIMME once pre-reg and
4.1
identifi
issues cation
in theequality
project objectives
stage?
project OR,goals,
does
document outcomes,
explicitly
the refer to
project
include agencies and stakeholders to support
and
women outputs
and men (max as thescore:
students, 2;parents,
for each item, corresponding analysis
implementation but" notisexplictly
submitted)stated
gender gaps that project must
1)
teachers,
4.2 Does or
address? theadministrators?
project have gender (possible scores:
equality 0.50 and no exact number of men and women
0, 0.5, 1.0)
outputs or outcomes? (see text for examples) 0.5 for each beneficiary
gender equality outcomes and outputs are
(possible scores: 0, 0.5, 1.0) 0.0
consistently pursued but not mentioned
5.0 Matching of strategies with gender
Do the strategies match the gender issues and no explicit mention of reducing gender
issues (possible scores: 0, 1.0, 2.0) 0.00
gender equality goals identified? That is, will gaps
the activities or interventions reduce gender
gaps and inequalities?
6.0 Gender analysis of the designed
project
6.1 Gender
6.1.1 Are (max
families score:
division inof 2)
labor
the (max
target score: 0.67;
community 1.32
6.1.2
for each
reliant Does
on thethe
question, project
work 0.22)
of offer
girls oropportunities
boys for income? 0.33
6.2.1
(through Does the project ensure that Embedded in the BED, REDP and DEDP
IF SO: Willcurricula,
opportunities fl exible
for
instructional
education
training and
materials,
schedules
scholarships helprole 0.11
models)
females formales
or expanding fi t in roles
their of women
other tasks? and that but no explicit
Embedded mention
in the BED, REDP and DEDP
6.1.3be Has an assessment been 0.11
may
men, girls
(possible
provided
and
scores:
are at
boys,
0,
equally
0.11, home
0.22)andmade
accessible
in the oftothe but not explicit
Embedded in themention
PDP or Professional
education
6.2 Access
women
community, and andto
men, training
and
economy, control
girls needs
and
and of of both
resources
boys?
society? females
(max
To(possible
different 0.11
Development Planning
and
score:males?
categories
scores: 0.67; of(possible
0, 0.11, for each scores:
0.22)question,
females and males 0,0.22)
0.11, 0.22)
(rural/urban, 0.33
ethnic
6.2.2 Isgroups)?
information (possible
aboutscores: 0, 0.11, 0.22)
educational 0.11 Embedded in the BED, REDP, DEDP and LRCP
opportunities readily available to females and 0.11 Embedded in the BED, REDP, DEDP and LRCP
males?
6 .2.3 Have(possible scores: 0,
all methods of 0.11, 0.22)delivery
education
been considered? (possible scores: 0, 0.11, 0.11 Embedded in the BED, REDP, DEDP and LRCP
0.22)
6.3 Constraints (max score: 0.67; for each
6 .3.1Monitoring
7.0 Has the project targets addressed any time and
and indicators 0.66
item,
6.3.2 0.33)
Has the project considered theboys
fi nancial
distance
(possible constraint
scores: so that girls
0,that
1.0, and
2.0)restrict
Does thecould 0.33 Embedded in the BED, REDP, DEDP and LRCP
costs
attend of participation
class? (possible may
scores: 0, 0.17, 0.33)
project include gender equality targets 0.33 Embedded in the BED, REDP, DEDP and LRCP
attendance of females or males? (possible
and indicators
scores: 0, 0.17, 0.33) for welfare, access, 2.00 Included in the LRCP
–consciousness
Net enrolment or school participation,
raising, participation rate and–
Passing
control?rate for female
Examples of and maledifferences
gender students
(NEAT,
that may NSAT, be HSRT)
monitored: – Participation in training
and similar project activities, by type of
8.0 Sex-disaggregated
training or activity – Employment database (possible
generated by
scores:
the project 0, 1.0, 2.0) Does the proposed No explicit mention. The pre-registration
project monitoring framework or plan 0.00 may be conducted and will serve as the
9.0
9.2 Resources
include
Does the (max
the collection
project score:
have ofthe 2;
sex- for each
expertise to SDD
1.0
9.1 Is 1)
item, theGAD
disaggregated
integrate budget allotted by
or data?
promote the project
gender equality suffi
and limited to no budget for GAD-direct
cient for gender
women’s empowerment? equality promotion
OR, is the or project 0.0
activities
the program owner is fully capacitated
integration?
committed to(possible investingscores:
project0,staff
0.5, time
1.0) in 1.0
being a member of the GFPS
building capacity for
10.0 Relationship withintegrating
the agency’s GADGAD or
promoting
efforts (max gender
score:equality?
2; for each (possible
item or scores: 0.00
0, 0.5, 1.0)
question, 0.67)
 10.1 Will the project build on or strengthen
the agency/ NCRFW/government’s
10.2 Does thetoproject have an exitofplan that 0 No mention
commitment the advancement women?
will ensure the sustainability
(possible scores: 0, 0.33, 0.67)of GAD efforts and 0 No mention
benefi ts? (possible scores: 0, 0.33, 0.67)
10.3 Will the project build on the initiatives or
actions of other organizations in the area? 0 No mention
(possible scores: 0, 0.33, 0.67)

TOTAL GAD SCORE – PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGN

Promising GAD prospects (conditional
STAGES (Add the score for each of the 10 elements, or the figures 6.15 pass)
in the thickly bordered cells.)
Corresponding Budget of the PAPs that may be Attributed to
31%
the Agency GAD Budget 0.3075

Pre-evaluated by:

RONIE C. GUINGGUE
 gender issue after implem

and LRCP
and LRCP

and LRCP

and LRCP
and LRCP
Interpretation of the GAD score
Corresponding Budget for
HGDG the Year of the Program
Description Interpretation G
Score that may be Attributed to
LINK to Attribution (
the Agency GAD Budget
Below Proposal earning a “conditional pass”,
0.0 GAD is invisible Proposal to be returned P 25% of the budget for the
4.0 pending identification of gender issue/s 0
Promising GAD year of the
and the strategies and activities to
4.0 – 7.9 4.0 prospects B program/project may be 4
address these, and inclusion of the
(conditional pass) attributed
50% of thetobudget
the GAD
for the
collection of sex-disaggregated data in the
budget
year of the
8.0 – monitoring and evaluation plan
8.0 Gender sensitive Proposal passing the GAD test program/project, may be
14.9
attributed to the GAD
budget 8
75% of the budget for the
year of the
15.0 – Gender-
15.0 Proponent to be commended program/project may be
19.0 responsive
attributed to the GAD
100%
budgetof the budget for 15
Fully gender- the year of the program
20 20.0 Proponent to be commended 20
responsive may be attributed to the
GAD budget
LINK to Attribution (Please don’t delete)

25%
25%

50%

75%
100%
* Use the BCDMIS to automate the attribution of the participants and the training/program management team
 SALARY
4th Tranche
2019

SG Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8

1 11,068 11,160 11,254 11,348 11,443 11,538 11,635 11,732

2 11,761 11,851 11,942 12,034 12,126 12,219 12,313 12,407
3 12,466 12,562 12,658 12,756 12,854 12,952 13,052 13,152
4 13,214 13,316 13,418 13,521 13,625 13,729 13,835 13,941
5 14,007 14,115 14,223 14,332 14,442 14,552 14,665 14,777
6 14,847 14,961 15,076 15,192 15,309 15,426 15,545 15,664
7 15,738 15,859 15,981 16,104 16,227 16,352 16,477 16,604
8 16,758 16,910 17,063 ### 17,372 17,529 17,688 17,848
9 17,975 18,125 18,277 18,430 18,584 18,739 18,896 19,054
10 19,233 19,394 19,556 19,720 19,884 20,051 20,218 20,387
11 20,754 21,038 21,327 21,619 21,915 22,216 22,520 22,829
12 22,938 23,222 23,510 23,801 24,096 24,395 24,697 25,003
13 25,232 25,545 25,861 26,181 26,506 26,834 27,166 27,503
14 27,755 28,099 28,447 28,800 29,156 29,517 29,883 30,253
15 30,531 30,909 31,292 31,680 32,072 32,469 32,871 33,279
16 33,584 34,000 34,421 34,847 35,279 35,716 36,159 36,606
17 36,942 37,400 37,863 38,332 38,807 39,288 39,774 40,267
18 40,637 41,140 41,650 42,165 42,688 43,217 43,752 44,294
19 45,269 46,008 46,759 47,522 48,298 49,086 49,888 50,702
20 51,155 51,989 52,838 53,700 54,577 55,468 56,373 57,293
21 57,805 58,748 59,707 60,681 61,672 62,678 63,701 64,741
22 65,319 66,385 67,469 68,570 69,689 70,827 71,983 73,157
23 73,811 75,015 76,240 77,484 78,749 80,034 81,340 82,668
24 83,406 84,767 86,151 87,557 88,986 90,439 91,915 93,415
25 95,083 96,635 98,212 99,815 ### ### ### ###
26 ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ###