DSWD Should Maintain the Suspension of 4Ps Expansion Until It … · 2017. 11. 3. · Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program as one of the priority programs to be audited. For the past

Performance Audit Report

PANTAWID PAMILYANG PILIPINO PROGRAM

DSWD Should Maintain the Suspension of 4Ps Expansion Until It Upgrades Its Information Technology Systems and Identifies Ineligible Beneficiaries

PAO-2017-01

PANTAWID PAMILYANG PILIPINO PROGRAM (4Ps)

DSWD SHOULD MAINTAIN THE SUSPENSION OF 4PS EXPANSION UNTIL IT UPGRADES ITS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SYSTEMS AND IDENTIFIES INELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES What COA Found

DSWD does not have the absorptive capacity to cover all identified poor households within its set timeframe. By focusing on mass registration, DSWD compromised its ability to target beneficiaries, monitor compliance, deliver services, and ensure data reliability. The program aims to keep children healthy and in school while breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty. Since 2010, DSWD data shows that 88% of program beneficiaries have had access to government health services, such as preventive health check-ups, vaccinations, and deworming medicines. In addition, the program ensured that 90% of the 9,432,580 registered children attended school. Moreover, the 2015 National Household Assessment found that about 1.3 million household beneficiaries transitioned above the poverty line. However, there is insufficient longitudinal evidence to determine if the program caused this decline and thereby contributed to the goal of breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty. Furthermore, data shows that increased access to basic health and education services of the government does not automatically translate to better health and jobs for the beneficiaries. Poverty incidence data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (as of June 2015) shows that the program successfully targeted regions with the highest percentage of poor households. However, DSWD’s individual household targeting has problems. DSWD data (as of May 22, 2017) reflect that 31,389 households that received benefits were non-poor and therefore ineligible. These errors resulted from poor data gathering during the 2009 National Household Assessment. According to program officials, the prior Administration had insufficient time and personnel to correct the data because its priority was on mass registration. As the Listahanan database is the main source of information on program beneficiaries from 2010-2015, the reported 1.3 million households which transitioned above the poverty line is questionable, hence, the DSWD is still in the process of validating the aforementioned report.

In 2015, the program shifted its focus from mass registration to efforts to correct the data integrity issues caused by the program’s rapid expansion. As of May 22, 2017, DSWD had identified 15,898 duplicate entries in its database. Upon further testing, this audit found an additional 530 duplicate entries in the database. During its expansion the program had inadequate IT support. The database and supporting structure was designed to handle 300,000 households but the program rapidly expanded to nearly 4.4 million households. As a result, systems users have been encountering systems lags and shutdowns, thereby increasing the time to finish their processes. With the change of administration in the middle of 2016, the DSWD implemented a moratorium on the acceptance of new households in order to focus on reassessing the program to identify and address existing gaps.

Highlights

Why COA Did This Study

For the past decade, the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program has been the centerpiece of the government’s social protection efforts helping millions of households living in poverty. Between 2008 and 2016, the program greatly expanded its coverage from about 282,917 to 4.4 million poor households. Budget allocations also increased from ₱299 million to ₱78.2 billion. DSWD administers the program. Prior impact evaluations have shown that the program improved the poor’s access to health services and kept their children in school. However, public opinion surveys show that people perceive the program as a ‘dole-out’ program that causes dependency. Furthermore, the sharp increases in funds and beneficiaries may have strained the program’s controls over program implementation. COA assessed the extent to which the program (1) achieved its goals and objectives; (2) utilized the funds only to poor households; and (3) used reliable data to allocate its funds. COA examined relevant laws, rules and regulations to determine the program’s goals, objectives and key performance indicators. COA examined DSWD data to assess the extent the program achieved its goals and objectives. COA examined the operations manuals and interviewed key DSWD officials to assess the program’s internal controls. Lastly, COA tested the reliability of DSWD’s database, identifying duplicate entries and outliers.

What COA Recommends

COA recommends that DSWD maintain the suspension of the expansion of the program until (1) it completes its IT Systems upgrade, pursuant to its Information Systems Strategic Plan (ISSP); (2) it eliminates duplicates and outliers in the database; (3) it completes its validation on the transitioning households; and (4) it reassesses its

staffing needs.

October 2017

Audit

Figure 1: Beneficiaries Registered from 2008-2015 v. 4Ps Staff from 2010-2017

Source: DSWD

PAO-2017-01

Page i PAO-2017-01

Contents Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

Letter 1

Background 3

While the 4Ps program has achieved positive and negative results the government will need longer-term data to determine if the program has made a difference in bootstrapping beneficiaries out of poverty

6

Problems with the individual household targeting and IT Systems aggravated the adverse effects of the rapid expansion of the program

20

Even with the effort of the DSWD to cleanse its database, duplicates and outliers still exist

35

Conclusion 42

Recommendations 43

Agency Comments 43

Appendix I Percent Distribution of the Population of High School Graduates by Educational Attainment

44

Appendix II Survey on Program Awareness 46

Appendix III COA Contact and Staff Acknowledgment 48

Figures Figure 1: Beneficiaries Registered from 2008-2015 v. 4Ps Staff from 2010-2017

Figure 2: Annual Budget Allocation of 4Ps

Figure 3: 2016 4Ps Budget Summary

Figure 4: Basic 4Ps Framework: Health and Education Investment Used as “Pantawid” or a Means to Cross the Poverty Line

Figure 5: Beneficiary Coverage (2008-2015)

Figure 6: Yearly Average Health Condition Compliance Rate (2010-2016)

Figure 7: Deworming per Region (2010-2016)

Figure 8: Immunization per Region (2010-2016)

Figure 9: Pre & Post Natal Check-ups per Region (2010-2016)

Figure 10: Yearly Average Education Condition Compliance Rate (2010-2016)

Figure 11: Day Care per Region (2010-2016)

Figure 12: Elementary per Region (2010-2016)

Figure 13: High School per Region (2014-2016)

Figure 14: Number of Students who Graduated with the Help of 4Ps

Figure 15: Number of Transitioning Beneficiaries

Figure 16: Compliance Rate with the FDS Conditions by Year and by Year and Region (2010-2016)

Figure 17: 4Ps Process Cycle

Figure 18: Beneficiaries Covered per Region v. PSA Data on Poverty Incidence per Region

Figure 19: Comparative Charts of Beneficiary Increase and Employee Increase

Figure 20: Number and Types of Complaints Filed Yearly

Page ii PAO-2017-01

Contents Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

Figure 21: Amount Allocated to GRS Delisted Households

Figure 22: Amount Already Disbursed to GRS Delisted Households

Figure 23: Number of Households Delisted or Removed

Figure 24: Number of Identified Duplicates

Figure 25: Number of Outliers in the List of Households

Figure 26: Number of Outliers Found in the Household Roster

Figure 27: Number of Additional Duplicates Found in the PPIS

Figure 28: Number of Active Duplicates Found in the PPIS

Figure 29: Amounts Recorded as “Claimed” by Delisted Duplicates

Figure 30: Computed Cash Grants of Households who were Subsequently Delisted as Duplicates

Figure 31: Percentage of Yearly Increase/Decrease of Computed Cash Grants of Households who were Subsequently Delisted as Duplicates Households

Figure 32: Computed Cash Grants vs. Amount Remitted to the Bureau of Treasury (2008-2016)

Figure 33: Comparison of Computed Cash Grants of Households who were Subsequently Delisted as Duplicates to Yearly Budget

Figure 34: Survey Results

Page iii PAO-2017-01

Abbreviations Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

4Ps Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program ADB Asian Development Bank AO Administrative Order AOM Audit Observation Memorandum ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao BDMD Beneficiary Data Management Division BDMS Beneficiary Data Management System CAR Cordillera Administrative Region CCT Conditional Cash Transfer Program CL City Link COA Commission on Audit CVD Compliance Verification Division CVS Compliance Verification System DepEd Department of Education DOH Department of Health DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development EAC Expanded Age Coverage EF Employment Facilitation EO Executive Order FDS Family Development Sessions FNSP Families in Need of Special Protection GAA General Appropriations Act GRD Grievance Redress Division GRS Grievance Redress System HAF Household Assessment Form HSF Homeless Street Families ICT Information Communication Technology IP in GIDA Indigenous Peoples in Geographically Isolated and

Disadvantaged Areas IPVPN Internet Protocol Virtual Private Network ISSAI International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions ISSP Information Systems Strategic Plan LGU Local Government Unit MD Microenterprise Development ML Municipal Link NAC National Advisory Council NCR National Capital Region NHTO National Household Targeting Office NHTS-PR National Household Targeting System for Poverty

Reduction NIR Negros Island Region NPMO National Project Management Office PMED Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation Division PMT Proxy Means Test PPIS Pantawid Pamilya Information System PSA Philippine Statistics Authority PSA-NSCB Philippine Statistics Authority - National Statistical

Coordination Board PSRC Philippine Survey and Research Center RA Republic Act RPMO Regional Project Management Office

Page iv PAO-2017-01

Abbreviations Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

SLP Sustainable Livelihood Program SWA Social Worker Assistant SWS Social Weather Stations UFMU Unified Financial Management Unit WB World Bank

Page 1 PAO-2017-01

October 12, 2017 UNDERSECRETARY EMMANUEL A. LEYCO

Department of Social Welfare and Development Quezon City Dear Undersecretary Leyco:

In line with its vision to become an enabling partner of the government in ensuring a better life for every Filipino, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted performance audits to help government agencies better perform their mandate and achieve program goals and objectives more economically, efficiently, and effectively. Pursuant to Section 2 (2), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution which vests COA the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, and establish techniques and methods required therefor, the COA Chairperson issued Office Order No. 2016-962 dated November 9, 2016 creating audit teams to conduct performance audits on selected priority programs/projects of the government. COA has identified the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program as one of the priority programs to be audited. For the past decade, the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program has been the centerpiece of the government’s social protection efforts helping millions of households living in poverty. Between 2008 and 2016, the program greatly expanded its coverage from about 282,917 to 4.4 million poor households.1 Budget allocations also increased from ₱299 million to ₱78.2 billion.2 According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), rigorous impact evaluations confirm that 4Ps improved access to health services, kept children in school, reduced child labor, and did not encourage dependency. However, despite presenting strong evidence of its success, public perception still tags 4Ps as a ‘dole-out’ program that causes dependency. 3 To highlight the aforementioned paradox, in 2017, the current Administration presented mixed views on the continuation of 4Ps. On one hand, the government declared that 4Ps was one of the major factors that led to the significant decline in poverty rate.4 And that it will continue the program to ensure that rights of poor children are upheld.5 Furthermore, the government plans to enhance 4Ps to help child beneficiaries and their families become self-sufficient and self-reliant.6 On the other hand, DSWD management is not for the institutionalization of 4Ps. Hence, it is in the

1 Technical Notes on the 2016 Proposed National Budget, Department of Budget and Management, (August 2015), p. 57. 2 Republic Act No. 10924 or the 2017 General Appropriations Act. 3 Karin Schelzig, Social Protection Brief: The Social Protection Support of the Philippines, available at https://www.adb.org/publications/social-protection-support-project-philippines, (last accessed June 26, 2017). 4 Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022, p. 47. 5 Ibid, p. 174. 6 Ibid.

Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON AUDIT Commonwealth Avenue Quezon City

Page 2 PAO-2017-01

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

process of reviewing the program.7 While reviewing, DSWD declared that no additional households will be enrolled in the program. In order to help the government decide on the matter, COA assessed the extent to which the program (1) achieved its goals and objectives; (2) utilized the funds only to poor households; and (3) used reliable data to allocate its funds. To determine the extent the program achieved its goals and objectives, we reviewed documentation related to 4Ps, such as program coverage reports, spot check reports, official program statistics, and impact evaluation reports covering program implementation from 2008-2016. We also reviewed applicable laws, rules and regulations related to 4Ps. In addition, we reviewed documentation on the planning evaluation and monitoring efforts of DSWD. We interviewed Senior DSWD officials responsible for monitoring to better understand the process by which DSWD develops, implements, and oversee the program. To determine the extent the program utilized the funds only to poor households, we reviewed the beneficiary selection processes of 4Ps, including the Listahanan9, in order to understand the controls of the program. We also interviewed Senior DSWD Officials responsible for beneficiary selection and delisting, which includes the Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Division (PMED), Beneficiary Data Management Division (BDMD), and the Grievance Redress Division (GRD). However, we were not able to interview Officials from the Listahanan upon their request for a separate audit. Instead of interviewing officials from Listahanan, we interviewed senior 4Ps officials, as a form of end-users feedback, to have an idea of the quality of Listahanan’s outputs and how it affected their operations. Furthermore, we conducted interviews with some of the enumerators who participated in the National Household Assessment to have an idea how they gathered data on the field. Please note, however, that Officials from the Listahanan were given an opportunity to comment on the findings during the exit conference and the same were incorporated in the report, as appropriate. We also conducted a national survey to gauge how well does the public know about the program. Lastly, to determine the extent the program used reliable data to allocate its funds, we evaluated the Pantawid Pamilya Information System (PPIS) by looking at its database integrity, security, and input controls. We also looked for duplicate entries and outliers. In addition, we examined documentation on the Information Technology (IT) Systems supporting 4Ps, such as the Information Systems Strategic Plan (ISSP) and relevant IT contracts in order to find out to what extent the DSWD ensured the appropriateness and efficiency of its systems. In addition, we interviewed end-users of the PPIS in order to have an idea how the information system affected 4Ps operations. We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to June 2017 in accordance with the International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions

7 Yvette Morales, Presidential Adviser: Reform CCT, Focus on Agriculture, CNN Philippines, February 9, 2017, available at http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/ 01/26/reform-CCT-focus-on-agriculture.html, (last accessed: June 26, 2017). 9 Listahanan is an information system for identifying who and where the poor households are. Its implementation is spearheaded by the DSWD through the NHTO.

Page 3 PAO-2017-01


(ISSAI) 300. The standard requires that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. According to DSWD documentation, 4Ps is a social protection measure of the Philippine government that focuses on human capital investment to poor households in the country.10 It aims to break the inter-generational cycle of poverty by fostering behavioural change among parents by helping them invest in the health, nutrition, and education of their children.11 4Ps provides cash grants to beneficiary households who were able to meet the conditions of the program in which all pregnant women shall be subjected to pre and post-natal check-ups, children aged 0-5 years old go to health centers for weight monitoring and monthly check-ups, children in elementary receive deworming pills twice a year (based on DOH protocols), children aged 3-18 years old attend schools 85% of the time and household grantees to attend Family Development Sessions at least once a month.12 It is modelled after Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs that have been successfully implemented in Latin America. It is there, where experience has shown that investment in human development, particularly in education and health, vastly improves a country's chances of reducing poverty. CCTs have been proven to positively impact outcomes such as: increasing the enrolment rate of children in schools in Mexico, Colombia, Bangladesh and Turkey; proven to decrease the incidence of child labor among children aged 7 to 13 years old in Mexico and Nicaragua; lower the incidence of illness among young children; increase the utilization of health services among young girls in Honduras and improve their nutritional status by increasing the average consumption rate and food expenditure.13 In its efforts to make the economic growth in the Philippines more inclusive, prior administration has focused its budget on programs that provide ample social safety nets to the poorest families while supporting them in improving their lives. One such move is to improve and expand 4Ps.14 Hence, the government increased 4Ps’ budget at a very rapid pace. Figure 2 shows how the budget of the program increased from 2008-2017.

10 4Ps Operations Manual, DSWD, 2015 Edition. p. 1. 11 DSWD Administrative Order No. 16, s. 2008, Guidelines on the Implementation of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. 12 4Ps Operations Manual, DSWD, 2008 Edition, p. 2. 13 Ibid., p. i. 14 Technical Notes, supra note 1, p. 56.

Background

Page 4 PAO-2017-01


Sources: 2008-2017 General Appropriations Acts

Cash Grants comprise the bulk of the budget appropriated for the program. Figure 3 shows that in the 2016 4Ps Budget, 89.4% of the entire budget of the program are for the payment of cash grants.

4Ps provides two types of cash grants, the health grant and the education grant. Compliant household beneficiaries receive ₱500.00 per month for health grants. For education, each child in day care, kindergarten and elementary shall receive ₱300.00 per month and ₱500.00 per month per child in high school. The education grant is provided to a maximum of 3 children for 10 months for each school year. A household with 3 high school children may receive a maximum amount of ₱2,000.00 per month including health grant. Households are not dictated on how to utilize the grants. Instead, households are encouraged, through the Family Development Sessions (FDS) to spend the grants on improving food consumption and augmenting expenditures particularly on health and education.15 In 2017, DSWD granted all active beneficiaries of 4Ps additional cash grant in the amount of ₱600.00 per month as rice subsidy, pursuant to

15 4Ps Operations Manual, supra note 10, p. 4.

Source: DSWD Implementation of Conditional Cash Transfer Program Breakdown of CY 2016

Figure 3: 2016 4Ps Budget Summary

Figure 2: Annual Budget Allocation of 4Ps

Page 5 PAO-2017-01


Source: COA Analysis of DSWD Information

Target Conditions Goal

National Advisory Committee (NAC) Resolution No. 36, s. 2016.16 According to the aforementioned NAC Resolution, Congress allocated ₱23.4 billion for 4Ps as part of the overall appropriation for the grants. Furthermore, the same indicated that the General Appropriations Act of 2017 provided that the amount appropriated should be used to provide additional grants for rice.17 This then increased the maximum allowable grant per household to ₱2,600.00. Eligible households are those that have been found to meet the following criteria: a) Identified as poor by Listahanan; b) Located in the cities, municipalities and barangays selected for 4Ps; c) Have children aged 0-18 years old or have a pregnant woman; and d) Willing and able to commit to conditions specified by the program.18 Below is an illustration of the basic framework of the program.

₱₱

As can be gleaned from Figure 4, the government designed the program to help poor families in the Philippines. To be considered poor, a household must be assessed and determined by Listahanan to be below the poverty threshold.19 According to the 2015 data on poverty, the average poverty threshold in the Philippines is ₱10,969.00 per capita for the 1st semester of 2015 or ₱1,828.00 per month per person or ₱9,140.83 per month for a family of five.20 Qualified beneficiaries with five family

16 Ed Margareth Barahan, 4Ps Beneficiaries to get P600 more in rice subsidy, Inquirer, March 16, 2017, available at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/881345/4ps-beneficiaries-to-get-p600-more-in-rice-subsidy-dswd, (last accessed: June 26, 2017). 17 National Advisory Committee Resolution No. 36, s. 2016. 18 4Ps Operations Manual, supra note 10, p. 2. 19 DSWD AO No. 16, supra note 11, p. 4. 20 2015 First Semester Official Poverty Statistics of the Philippines, Philippine Statistics Authority, 2015 ed., p. 1.

Figure 4: Basic 4Ps Framework: Health and Education Investment used as “Pantawid” or a

Means to Cross the Poverty Line

Beneficiaries will receive the following:

Health Grants

₱500.00 per month in exchange for availing certain health services of the government such as pre- and post-natal check-ups, immunization, and deworming. Beneficiaries are also required to attend monthly family development sessions.

Education Grants (Maximum of 3 Children and given only 10 months per year)

₱500.00 per month for High School students with class attendance rate of 85%.

₱300.00 per month for Kinder or Elementary School students with class attendance rate of 85%

Rice Subsidy

₱600.00 – Must be an active beneficiary of 4Ps

To be eligible, beneficiaries:

Must be identified as poor by the Listahanan;

Must be located in cities, municipalities selected for 4Ps;

Must have children 0-18 years old or have a pregnant member; and

Must be willing and able to commit to the conditions specified by the program

The program helps children graduate from high school by keeping them healthy and in school through the cash grants.

The idea is that upon graduating from high school, children will be equipped to pursue further studies or start working. With stable jobs, the children will be able to break the inter-generational cycle of poverty.

Page 6 PAO-2017-01


While the 4Ps program has achieved positive and negative results, the government will need longer-term data to determine if the program has made a difference in bootstrapping beneficiaries out of poverty

members earn less than ₱305.00 per day to cover all their basic needs, such as food, shelter, and clothing. In 2012, Ibon foundation claimed that the appropriate Family Living Wage is ₱1,017.00 in the NCR.21 In 2014, the Food and Nutrition Research Institute released its study on the recommended meal component for Filipinos stating that a family, based on the computation made by Rappler, a family in the NCR would have to set aside ₱439.00 per day to be able to eat healthy and right.22 Based on the aforementioned figures, the daily budget of qualified beneficiaries is insufficient to afford them healthy meals. 4Ps addresses this issue by augmenting the budget of the beneficiaries to give them the ability to invest on the health, nutrition, and education of their children. Equipped with education and skills, the program hopes to give the families a chance to move above the poverty line.

In the 2017 Philippine Development Plan, the government claimed that the expansion of 4Ps is a major factor in the significant decrease in the poverty incidence in the Philippines.23 In 2015, DSWD determined that there are 1,315,477 household beneficiaries who have moved above the poverty line and are ready for transition. However, available DSWD data only show that 4Ps was able to encourage its beneficiaries to avail education and health services of the government. It does not say whether these services are effective in keeping children healthy nor whether increased access to primary and secondary public education would guarantee that the beneficiaries will be properly equipped to pursue further studies or to secure jobs. Furthermore, there is insufficient longitudinal evidence to determine if the program caused this decline and thereby contributed to the goal of breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty. According to the 4Ps Operations Manual, the goal of the program is to promote the accumulation of human capital among young children (0-18 years old), and to contribute in breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty among poor households.24 Its objectives are the following:

21 Midyear 2012: Exclusionary Economics, Elite Politics, Birdtalk Economic and Political Briefing, Ibon Foundation, p. 16. 22 Jodesz Gavilan, Is the minimum wage enough for a day’s worth of nutritious meals?, Rappler, March 21, 2015, http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/87468-minimum-wage-enough-daily-nutritious-meals, (last accessed: June 26, 2017). 23 PDP, supra note 4, p. 47. 24 4Ps Operations Manual, supra note 10, p. 1

Page 7 PAO-2017-01


Program Covered 93% of Eligible Households

1. To improve preventive health care of pregnant women and young children; a. to increase growth and nutrition monitoring visits of infants and

children under five years old; b. to promote complete immunization of infants and children

under three years old; c. to ensure regular visit to health centers of pregnant women

and young children; d. to increase child growth and lower stunting among children 5

years old below; e. to lower the incidence of complications in pregnancy and

maternal deaths.

2. To increase the enrolment and attendance rate of children in day care, kindergarten, elementary, and secondary schools;

3. To contribute to the reduction of incidence of child labor;

4. To raise the average consumption rate in food expenditure of poor households;

5. To encourage parents to invest in their children's health, nutrition

and education;

6. To enhance the performance of parenting roles of beneficiaries and their participation in community development activities.

As mentioned earlier, prior administration aggressively increased funding for the program in order to expand its operations. According to program implementers, covering poor households has also become one of the main objectives of the program for the past years.25 As a result, apart from measuring the extent it has been achieving its objectives as stated in its Operations Manual, DSWD also measures its performance by the number of households it covers.

In 2009, the DSWD, through the Listahanan, has identified about 5.2 million poor households. Of the 5.2 million, about 4.7 million met the requirements of the program. As can be seen in Figure 5, DSWD has been generally meeting its yearly target. By 2015, the program had already covered 93% of the 4.7 million household target. As of April 30, 2017, DSWD registered 4,872,362 households surpassing its original target. However, out of the 4,872,362, only 4,383,102 are eligible to receive grants. There are 211,389 households with pending data updates or resolution of grievances and 277,871 households who were delisted from the program due to various forms of ineligibility.26 Fraud, Waiver, Duplicates, No eligible members, and being above the poverty threshold are some of the examples of the various forms of ineligibility which caused the delisting of some of the households.

25 Interview with the OIC Division Chief of PMED, DSWD, in Quezon City, March 22, 2017. 26 Joint WB-ADB Review Mission, DSWD, June 5, 2017, Updates on Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, slide 2.

Page 8 PAO-2017-01


Figure 6: Yearly Average Health Condition Compliance Rate (2010-2016)

Source: DSWD

Source: DSWD

DSWD has been successful in encouraging its beneficiaries to avail the health services of the government. However, based on spot check reports and qualitative and quantitative evaluations, access to government health services does not guarantee that children will be healthy. Figure 6 shows that, from 2010 to 2016, the program consistently registered above 88% compliance with the health conditions of the program, such as deworming, immunization and preventive check-ups.

In order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the program, DSWD commissioned the Social Weather Stations (SWS), a social research institution in the Philippines, to conduct spot check reports on the operations of the program. The spot check reports include data on the effects of the program on the health of the children. In its 2011 Spot Check Report27, SWS found that among the children ages 0-6 surveyed, 11% were underweight. In 2012, the percentage of those underweight went up

27 Social Weather Stations, Spot Checks to Monitor the Operations of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Phase I Main Findings Report, November 18-December 9, 2010 Fieldwork Period (2011), pp. 20-21.

Eighty eight percent (88%) of the program beneficiaries receive health services, however, access to government health services does not automatically equate to healthiness


Page 9 PAO-2017-01


by 1 at 12%.28 And in 2017, 14% were still found to be underweight.29 It should be noted however, that the spot check reports is not a longitudinal survey. Hence, the data does not involve the same set of children. Nevertheless, the results still present an indication of the programs’ limitations. In fact, the Impact Evaluation Wave 2, indicate that there is no significant difference between beneficiary and non-beneficiary children, below six years old, who suffer from wasting, underweight, and stunting.30 Another key indicator identified by the DSWD in its Spot Check Reports and Impact Evaluations is facility-based deliveries. According to the Impact Evaluation Wave 2, “more 4Ps mothers delivered in health facilities. At the threshold, there were 7 in 10 live births among 4Ps mothers in the past five years, compared to 5.5 in 10 births among non-beneficiary mothers and to the national average of 6 in 10 births.”31 A 2012 Spot Check Report stated that only 21% of the mothers surveyed delivered in a health facility.32 Based on the 2012 Spot Check Report and the 2014 Impact Evaluation, there is a significant improvement in 2014 in terms of facility-based deliveries. However, in the 2016 Spot Check Report, 56% of those surveyed gave birth at home indicating low usage of health facilities. In response to the general limitations of the program, DSWD Senior Officials state that the task of alleviating poverty and breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty does not rest on their agency alone. 33 While Administrative Order No. 16, s. 2008, indicates that DSWD will be the primary agency in charge of implementing 4Ps, it does not vest upon it the obligation to ensure the quality of the health services of the government. According to the Administrative Code of the Philippines, it rightly belongs to the Department of Health. The pertinent provision of the Administrative Code provides that “the Department (DOH) shall be primarily responsible for the formulation, planning, implementation, and coordination of policies and programs in the field of health. The primary function of the Department is the promotion, protection, preservation or restoration of the health of the people through the provision and delivery of health services and through the regulation and encouragement of providers of health goods and services.”34 Clearly, DOH is the agency that needs to address the aforementioned issues. As for DSWD, it has done its part of bringing the beneficiaries to the health facilities to avail health services. Figures 7, 8, and 9 show the average compliance rates of each region with the health conditions. Based on DSWD data, compliance with the health conditions is also generally high among the regions. However, Region IV-A and NCR registered low compliance rate with deworming and immunization, respectively. According to the Philippine Survey and Research Center (PSRC), a research agency hired by WB to evaluate 4Ps, chief among the factors that drive non-compliance is the inadequate

28 Social Weather Stations, Spot Checks to Monitor the Operations of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Phase III Main Findings Report, March 17–April 5, 2012 Fieldwork Period (2012), p. 45. 29 Social Weather Stations, Quantitative Assessment (Spot Check) Phase E to Monitor the Implementation of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, July 15–August 7, 2016, pp. 30-32. 30 DSWD, World Bank, Australian Aid, and Asian Development Bank, Keeping children healthy and in school, Evaluating the Pantawid Pamilya using Regression Discontinuity Design, Second Wave Impact Evaluation Results, pp. 18–19. 31 Ibid, p. 14. 32 2012 Spot Check, supra note 28, p. 46. 33 Exit Conference, DSWD, June 9, 2017, p 3. 34 Section 2, Chapter 1, Title IX, Book IV of EO No. 292, s. 1987.

Page 10 PAO-2017-01


Figure 8: Immunization per Region (2010-2016)

Source: DSWD

Source: DSWD

program knowledge of beneficiaries, particularly when it comes to their duties and responsibilities as 4Ps stakeholders.35

35 Philippine Survey and Research Center, Comparative Study of Regional Differences in Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Implementation, p. 59.

Figure 7: Deworming per Region (2010-2016)

Page 11 PAO-2017-01


Figure 9: Pre & Post Natal Check-ups per Region (2010-2016)

Source: DSWD

Source: DSWD

According to PSRC, “as a result of their unawareness of the program’s basic details, beneficiaries are not able to follow their duties and responsibilities as 4Ps members. Beneficiaries in non-compliant areas often miss monthly health center appointments because they do not know they are required. This lack of information is rooted in the insufficient orientation the beneficiaries receive going into the program, which is a result of infrequent and ineffective orienting techniques of the program implementers.”36 PSRC cited the examples of Makati and Manila, “some beneficiaries recall being oriented and reminded of the program conditionalities only once throughout their membership in the 4Ps. Furthermore, in these cities, city links (CL) – implementers who work most closely with the beneficiaries – transfer the responsibility of reminding beneficiaries to the parent leaders. As a result, beneficiaries are given inaccurate and incomplete information that is not followed through by implementers.”37 According to program officials, as 4Ps expanded, caseloads, especially for CLs, became unmanageable.38 “Another common challenge for beneficiaries in Manila and Makati is the presence of other economic work opportunities available in the area. Residents in these areas typically juggle multiple jobs in order to survive financially. More often than not, beneficiaries who struggle with these multiple rakets or odd jobs sacrifice complying with program conditions which often run in conflict with the schedules of their work commitments.”39

36 Ibid, p. 60. 37 Ibid. 38 Interview with the OIC Division Chief of the Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Division, in DSWD, March 22, 2017, p. 10. 39 PSRC Study, supra note 35, p. 68.

Page 12 PAO-2017-01


Figure 10: Yearly Average Education Condition Compliance Rate (2010-2016)

Figure 11: Day Care per Region (2010-2016)

Source: DSWD

Source: DSWD

DSWD has been successful in encouraging registered children to attend classes. However, due to the late inclusion of children ages 15-18, DSWD was not able to maximize the possible gains of the program. Furthermore, there is insufficient data to determine whether increased access to primary and secondary public education would guarantee that the beneficiaries will be properly equipped to pursue further studies or to secure jobs. Figure 10 shows that more than 90% of the total number of registered children regularly attended classes. As of April 30, 2017, there are 9,432,580 children registered in the program.

Figures 11, 12, and 13 show the average compliance rates of each region with the education conditions. Based on DSWD data, compliance of each region is also generally high.

Ninety percent (90%) of registered children regularly attend school, however, only 4% have graduated from high school

Page 13 PAO-2017-01

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Source: DSWD Figure 12: Elementary per Region (2010-2016)

Figure 13: High School per Region (2014-2016)

Source: DSWD

Source: DSWD

Source: DSWD

Source: DSWD

As can be gleaned from Figures 12 and 13, there are noticeable drops in compliance rates in certain regions. In the 2016 Spot Check Report, SWS found that the top 5 reasons for non-compliance with the 85% attendance requirement are the following: (1) Illness; (2) Bad weather; (3) Lack of interest; (4) No allowance; and (5) Peer influence.40 The aforementioned Spot Check Report further found that 7% of the children dropped out in the middle of the school year 2015-2016. Here are the top 5 reasons for dropping out: (1) Lack of interest; (2) Peer influence; (3) Illness; (4) Bullying; and (5) Need to work.41

40 2016 Spot Check, supra note 29, p. 35. 41 Ibid, p. 36.

Page 14 PAO-2017-01


Figure 14: Number of Students who Graduated with the Help of 4Ps

Source: DSWD

To place the aforementioned data into perspective, the 2013 Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS) conducted by PSA show that “of the total population of 6 to 24 years old in the Philippines, 24.8 million were currently attending school while 11.5 million were not attending school. The primary reason of those not attending school was employment or looking for work with 28.8%, followed by family income not sufficient to send child to school with 15.7% and lack of interest as the third primary reason with 14.9%.”42 Though “need to work” still ranked number 5 among the program beneficiaries in the 2016 Spot Check Report, only 9% of those surveyed dropped out of school due to this reason.43 At least for the program beneficiaries, insufficiency of income and need to work dropped in rank as a reason for not attending school. Despite recording above 90% compliance rate with the education conditions, only 333,673 out of the 9,432,580 (4%) registered children graduated from the program in 2015 as shown in Figure 14. It must be noted that this data refers to children who graduated from high school before the implementation of the K-12 program. K-12 added two years to High School, hence, those who were supposed to graduate in 2016 and 2017 stayed in school to complete the additional two years of high school. Furthermore, children ages 15-18 were covered in the program only in 2014, through the Expanded Age Coverage (EAC).44 It is also worthy to note that before the implementation of the EAC, program-beneficiaries can only be served by the program for a maximum of 5 years, regardless if the household still have eligible children for monitoring or not. With the implementation of EAC, it effectively removed the 5 year term of 4Ps beneficiaries.

Non-inclusion of older children and the 5-year term have been the subject of much criticism. Originally, the program was intended for children ages 0-14 with a term of five years per beneficiary. However, critics observed that upon reaching the age of 14 or at the end of 5 years, the best that the children could do was to finish half of high school. Critics believed that “a high school graduate will have more employment opportunities and higher

42 2013 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey, PSA p. 28. 43 2016 Spot Check, supra note 29, p. 36. 44 NAC Resolution No. 12, s. 2013.

Page 15 PAO-2017-01


pay. If the program aims only for graduation in the elementary level, and does not provide an effective exit strategy, the possible returns are very minimal to matter.”45 In addition, according to the 2013 FLEMMS, functional literacy of a person increases with level of education. In support of the aforementioned observation, the report showed that 96.1% of persons 10 to 64 years old who had reached high school are able to read and write. However, among elementary graduates and those who reached elementary level, only 92.5% and 80.9% are able to read and write, respectively.46 Realizing the merit of the aforementioned observation, NAC extended the coverage of 4Ps by including children ages 15-18 in the program in 2014. As of April 30, 2017, there are 2,563,650 children ages 15-18 or 27.40% of the total number of children covered in the program. Of 2,563,650 children, 383,753 are expected to graduate by the end of school year 2017-2018.47 The idea behind investing in the health and education of the children was to equip them with the appropriate skills and knowledge to be able to pursue further studies or secure jobs. A form of measurement of the quality of education would be an important indicator in determining the children’s readiness. However, program monitoring does not include quality of education as one of its indicators. According to DSWD, GWA requirement is indicated in the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) signed by the Secretary but was removed as program requirement thru a Memorandum for the Secretary dated November 11, 2015. Only in NAC Resolution no. 18, s. 2015, where the program prescribed a grade requirement for the release of grants. The pertinent provision reads: “children in elementary who repeat a year level in school are allowed to continue with the program but children in high school are required by the end of the school year to reach the passing General Weighted Average prescribed by the Department of Education (DepEd) and/or promoted to the next level”.48 However, the same with the health objectives of the program, the education objective of 4Ps is to simply bring the children to the institution, or in this case, to school. Ensuring the quality of education properly belongs to DepEd. Furthermore, based on the 2013 FLEMMS, of the 37.18 million Filipinos who graduated from high school, 9.9% take postsecondary courses or technical vocational courses, 20.5% take college units, and 24.9% graduate from college. The rest or 44.7% remain as high school graduates only.49 Thus, in terms of preparedness to pursue further studies, statistics indicate that only a few would be able to have higher educational attainment. But with the introduction of the K-12 program under DepEd, secondary education would already contain technical vocational courses within its curriculum. However, K-12 has yet to produce its first batch of high school graduates. Hence, DepEd does not have data on whether or not skills gained by the students through the improved curriculum would be desirable enough for the employers to hire them.

45 Celia M. Reyes and Aubrey D. Tabuga, Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino: Why “deepening” matters in achieving its human capital objective, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, February 2013, pp. 4-5. 46 2013 FLEMMS, supra note 42, p. 39. 47 Joint WB-ADB Review Mission, supra note 26, slide 7. 48 DepEd Memorandum No. 57, 2015 citing NAC Resolution no. 18, s. 2015. 49 2013 FLEMMS, supra note 42, p. 21. See Appendix I for the computation.

Page 16 PAO-2017-01


At the onset, Senior DSWD Officials clarified that they have established on many occasions that 4Ps is not a poverty reduction program but a social protection program. They have corrected this by clarifying the matter in the latest version of the programs’ Operations Manual. DSWD further clarifies that breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty is the long term goal of the program. Hence, observable changes in the economic status of the beneficiaries will only manifest after years of program implementation. However, it should be noted that, initially, when the program was created, it was the intention of the government to use 4Ps as a poverty reduction strategy. Administrative Order No. 16, s. 2008 or the Guidelines on the Implementation of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program provides that “4Ps is a poverty reduction strategy that provides cash grant to extremely poor households to allow the members of the families to meet certain human development goals. It is focused on building human capital of poorest families (health/nutrition and education) because low schooling and high malnutrition rate are strongly associated with poverty cycle in the Philippines.”50 DSWD should continue its efforts in clarifying the matter since the National Government still declared that 4Ps was one of the major factors that led to the significant decline in poverty rate51 even though there is insufficient longitudinal evidence to determine if the program caused the same. The decline in the poverty incidence in 2015 cannot be attributed to 4Ps because of the following reasons: (1) the program has just produced its first graduates in 2015; (2) there are only 333,673 who graduated from high school as opposed to the 1,315,477 households who are identified by Listahanan as non-poor; and (3) cash grant in the maximum amount of ₱2,600.00 per month is not enough to lift the beneficiaries above the poverty line. As discussed in the previous subsection, 4Ps had just extended its coverage to include children ages 15-18 in 2014. Following the basic framework of the program, it would take years before the household would experience improvements financially. In 2015, Listahanan conducted its National Household Assessment to update its list of poor households. The results reveal that out of the 4,402,253 registered beneficiaries, 1,315,477 households are out of the poverty line. As shown in Figure 15, transitioning beneficiaries composed 30% of the total number of registered beneficiaries.

50 DSWD AO no. 16, supra note 11, p. 2. 51 PDP 2017-2022, supra note 4, p. 47.

4Ps contributes in breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty however there is insufficient data to determine its extent

Page 17 PAO-2017-01

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Figure 15: Number of Transitioning Beneficiaries

Source: 2017 General Appropriations Act

This data would have supported the claim of the government that the program has been reducing poverty in the country. However, with only 333,673 graduates, most transitioning beneficiaries are likely out of the poverty line due to factors other than 4Ps. Furthermore, DSWD is still in the process of validating the results of the 2015 National Household Assessment. Lastly, the amount of cash grants is small. Beneficiaries receive a maximum amount of ₱2,600.00 per month or approximately $52 to augment the household budget of a family with five members. As mentioned earlier, the average poverty threshold in the Philippines is ₱10,969.00 per capita for the 1st semester of 2015 or ₱1,828.00 per month per person or ₱9,140.83 per month for a family of five.52 An addition of approximately ₱ 87.00 per day for 30 days would not be enough to lift a family out of the poverty line.

“Palliative, unsustainable, and government dole-out – these are the common criticisms against 4Ps. Critics argue that the program's palliative characteristic is because it does not have long lasting effects against poverty. In their view, the huge amount of resources spent on 4Ps would be better spent on job creation and training that would teach the poor how to fish”.53 Even the DSWD management has said that 4Ps is not enough to alleviate poverty and that it is only a social protection program. There should be different levels of intervention, and it should build up the capacity of the people to stand on their own.54 A look into to the program would reveal that 4Ps has been capacitating beneficiaries through its FDS. Furthermore, there are existing programs in place complementing 4Ps, such as the Enhanced Basic Education Act or K-12, and the Sustainable Livelihood Program to name a few. Combined with 4Ps, these programs bring a broader approach in the government’s efforts to reduce poverty. The FDS is a monthly parent group activity attended by the main grantee/s of the household, usually mothers, to enhance their parenting capabilities and encourage them to be more active citizens of the society. It aims to

52 2015 First Semester Official Poverty Statistics of the Philippines, supra note 20. 53 Aniceto C. Orbeta, Jr. and Vicente B. Paqueo, Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program: Boon or Bane?, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, December 2016 ed., p. 7. 54 Morales, supra note 7.

There are existing programs complementing 4Ps

which brings a broader approach in the government’s efforts to reduce poverty

70% 30%

30 %

70%

Page 18 PAO-2017-01


Figure 16: Compliance Rate with the FDS Conditions by Year and by Year and Region (2010-2016)

Source: DSWD

deepen the understanding as a household beneficiary and encourage peer support and monitoring for improvement of their compliance to program conditionalities.55 FDS also involve different modules on parenthood, behaviour management, health and nutrition, financial literacy and any other topic which would suit the needs of the community. In fact, FDS has the flexibility to accommodate requests from beneficiaries for particular topics which best suit their needs, including entrepreneurship. However, the aforementioned feature has not been fully utilized. In the 2016 Spot Check Report, according to the grantees, only 33% were asked about the sessions/topics they want discussed in the FDS.56 Furthermore, another limitation is that DSWD has yet to develop a tool to measure the FDS’s success. It must be noted, however, that DSWD have been receiving feedback from the beneficiaries through the spot check reports. In the 2016 Spot Check Report, the top 5 topics grantees learned the most are the following: (1) health care; (2) disaster preparedness; (3) being responsible parents; (4) topics related to violence against children; and (5) Preparation for family life.57 Livelihood ranked 17th among the topics considered most helpful to the beneficiaries consisting 5% of those surveyed.58 Figure 16 shows that compliance with the requirement to attend FDS is also high. With more than 90% attendance rate, DSWD has a captured audience for the FDS.

Another feature of 4Ps is that it allows public participation. Civil Society Organizations and other groups are encouraged to volunteer. Organizations may be involved in any of the following ways59:

a. enlist volunteers from their own organizations to assist in the implementation or monitoring of the program;

55 Briefing, DSWD, February 7, 2017, Empowering Filipino Families through FDS p. 2. 56 2016 Spot Check, supra note 29, pp. 89-90. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 CSOs and Volunteers Statement of Commitment to the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, Clark Pampanga, September 7, 2011.

Page 19 PAO-2017-01


b. participate in Community Assemblies as part of the beneficiary identification process;

c. on-the-ground audit of the Compliance Verification System;

d. assist in the Beneficiary Updating System; e. assist in the implementation of the Grievance

Redress System; f. enhancement and implementation of the Family

Development Session modules. Participate in advisory committees at the municipal/city, provincial, regional and national levels; and

g. initiate the formation of an oversight structure and undertake measures to sustain the gains of the program.

DSWD has established standards and controls to manage these partnerships but it still has to revisit and refine the same in order to avoid complications. An example would be a partnership of DSWD with a certain organization in conducting the FDS. PSRC noted in its study that “a few beneficiaries in Manila note being turned-off due to the overtly religious sessions that were conducted, as well as the bank-affiliated speakers that were invited to the session. Their dissatisfaction with these speakers leave beneficiaries in these areas with no real understanding or appreciation of the benefits of attending an FDS. Hence, some would rather give-up the ₱500 that comes with not attending an FDS in lieu of other responsibilities or opportunities that are deemed better and more important.”60 As mentioned earlier, there are other existing programs which complement 4Ps, an example would be K-12. Enacted in 2013, the K-12 or Enhanced Basic Education Act extended the coverage of basic education by adding two (2) years of senior high school education. The new curriculum included Technical Vocational Education. With the extension of coverage of 4Ps to include children aged 15-18 years old, graduating beneficiaries will be readily employable since they will be equipped with useful skills.61 Should the children choose to pursue further studies, the guidelines on the grant of free tuition in State Universities and Colleges for Fiscal Year 2017 included 4Ps beneficiaries as one of the prioritized groups for the grant.62 Another social program for families and communities is the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP). The SLP offers two tracks to its target beneficiaries: (1) the Microenterprise Development (MD) track and the (2) Employment Facilitation (EF) track. The MD Track uses a microcredit scheme wherein participants are provided assistance in the establishment and expansion of their microenterprise. On the other hand, the EF Track facilitates the employment of participants through job matchings and skills trainings. Participation in either or both of the two SLP tracks would link the 4Ps families to income-generating opportunities to enable them to sustain their economic development and thus transition from survival to self-sufficiency.63 As of December 2015, around 22% of the total number of families enrolled in the 4Ps has been served in the SLP. Out of the

60 PSRC Study, supra note 35, p. 63. 61 Section 10.1, Rule II of the Implementing Rules and Regulation of Republic Act No. 10533 or Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 dated May 15, 2013. 62 Commission on Higher Education and Department of Budget and Management Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2017-1 dated April 20, 2017. 63 Marife M. Ballesteros et al., Assessment of the Sustainable Livelihood Program – Employment Facilitation Process, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, April 2016,p. 1.

Page 20 PAO-2017-01


Problems with the individual household targeting and IT Systems aggravated the adverse effects of the rapid expansion of the program

963,978 4Ps families served in the SLP, 86% (830,638 4Ps families) have been served through the Microenterprise Development (MD) Track while only 14% (133,340 4Ps families) have been served through the Employment Facilitation (EF) Track.64

Even with sophisticated and well-thought of systems, the rapid expansion of the program still adversely affected 4Ps compromising its targeting, monitoring and service delivery. Furthermore, problems with the individual household targeting and IT systems aggravated these adverse effects making it difficult for the DSWD to cope with its increasing workload. For social protection programs like for 4Ps, ensuring that only deserving households receive the benefit is of utmost importance especially for countries with limited resources, like the Philippines. 4Ps have several systems in order to ensure that only the neediest receive the program’s benefit and services, namely:(1) Listahanan; (2) Beneficiary Data Management System; (3) Compliance Verification System; (4) Unified Financial Management Unit (UFMU); and (5) the Grievance Redress System. Figure 17 shows the basic process flow of 4Ps and the corresponding system supporting each process. Listahanan covers the beneficiary selection processes. BDMS covers the eligibility, validation, and updating processes. CVS covers compliance with program conditions. UFMU covers the payments of grants. And GRS covers the entire program should any of the systems failed. We have identified four (4) major factors, which aggravated the effects of the rapid expansion of the program: (1) problems with individual household targeting; (2) failure to conduct thorough and regular data cleaning; (3) insufficiency of the program’s human resources; and (4) the inability of the GRS to capture the leak. This chapter will discuss these problems and how it affected 4Ps’ operations.

64 Ibid.

Page 21 PAO-2017-01


Figure 17: 4Ps Process Cycle

Beneficiary Data Management System

(BDMS)

Compliance Verification System (CVS)

Source: COA Analysis of DSWD Data

Unified Financial Management Unit (UFMU)

Selection of Provinces /

Municipalities

Family Registry Preparation

Verification of Compliance with Conditions

1st Release of Cash Grants

Registration and Validation

of Households

Selection of Household

Beneficiaries

Supply-Side Assessment

Succeeding Releases of Cash Grants

Listahanan

MAIN PROCESS

Grievance Redress System

(GRS)

SYSTEMS SUPPORTING SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE PROCESS CYCLE

SYSTEMS SUPPORTING THE ENTIRE PROCESS CYCLE

Page 22 PAO-2017-01


Figure 18: Beneficiaries Covered per Region v. PSA Data on

Poverty Incidence per Region

Source: DSWD, PSA

Poverty incidence data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (as of June 2015) shows that the program successfully targeted regions with the highest percentage of poor households. However, its individual household targeting has problems. DSWD data (as of May 22, 2017) reflect that 31,389 households that received benefits were non-poor and therefore ineligible. These errors and inconsistencies are mainly a result of the poor data gathering implemented by Listahanan during its 2009 Household Assessment. As a background, 4Ps follows a two-step process in selecting beneficiaries for the program. The first step is geographic targeting or selection of provinces, municipalities, cities, and barangays to be covered by the program. The areas are selected based on the poverty incidence published by the Philippine Statistics Authority - National Statistical Coordination Board (PSA-NSCB)65. Figure 18 shows that 4Ps beneficiary coverage is parallel with the number of poor households per region as reported by the Philippine Statistics Authority save for some variations in some of the regions.

The second step is the household targeting or selection of poor households. This is conducted by the Listahanan formerly known as National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction Program (NHTS-PR). Listahanan serves as a system for identifying who and where the poor households are. The Listahanan process involved the interview of households using a two-page Household Assessment Form (HAF) that was designed to collect data on household composition, education, housing conditions, access to basic services, assets and tenurial status. The information collected from the HAF was used to estimate the per capita income of the household using the Proxy Means Test.66The PMT model is a statistical method used to predict the income of a household based on observable characteristics that correlate with, but are easier to measure, than income. In lieu of the household's actual income (per capita), its predicted income (per capita) from the PMT model is used to

65 4Ps Operations Manual, supra note 10, p. 20. 66 Listahanan Operations Manual, 2015 ed., p. 13.

4Ps has been successful in targeting regions with high percentage of poor households but its individual household targeting has operational issues

Page 23 PAO-2017-01


compare with the official poverty threshold, computed by the PSA-NSCB. The household is classified as poor when the predicted per capita income from the PMT model is less than or equal to the official poverty threshold, otherwise, the household is classified as non-poor.67 Basically there are 3 areas of concern that need to be addressed in household targeting: (1) frequency of updating the list; (2) balancing the inclusion and exclusion errors; and (3) data gathering. Frequency of updating the list. Under Section 2 of Executive Order No. 86768, s. 2010, the DSWD shall maintain the system and serve as the repository of the data on poor households and shall update the data every 4 years. The 1st National Household Assessment was conducted in 2009. The 2nd Household Assessment should have been conducted in 2013. However, DSWD was only able to conduct it in 2015. According to DSWD, the delay in the release of the funds caused the delay in conducting the assessment.69 As a result, 4Ps has been using the 2009 Listahanan data for a prolonged period of time. The use of an out-dated list increased the possibility of covering households who may no longer be classified as poor. As mentioned earlier, in 2015, Listahanan identified 1,315,477 households who may no longer be poor. With an outdated list, 4Ps is unable to determine, since when did these 1.3 million households become non-poor. Ideally, it would be helpful if the list would be updated annually. However, the last National Household Assessment had a budget allocation of ₱1,748,705,000.00,70 which if done annually, would increase the administrative costs significantly. Furthermore, the updated list has not been implemented yet since it is still under validation. Results of the validation will reveal either of 2 things: on one hand, if validation confirms that there are 1.3 million non-poor households, the program has been giving grants to 1.3 million ineligible households and the delay in the implementation of the National Household Assessment also delays the stoppage of the leakage. On the other hand, if validation reveals that the 1.3 million identified non-poor households are still poor then this raises the issue on the reliability of the 2nd National Household Assessment. Balancing the inclusion and exclusion errors. Based on the technical notes on the PMT, the 2009 PMT model has large exclusion and inclusion errors. The exclusion error rate is about 30% while the inclusion error rate is about 24%. These error rates produced high leakages.71 Exclusion error rate is defined as number of actual poor households classified as non-poor by the models divided by the total number of actual poor households, while the inclusion error rate is the number of actual non-poor households classified as poor divided by the total number of households classified as poor by the models. There is always a trade-off between the two errors: decreasing the exclusion error rate tends to increase the inclusion error rate and vice versa, all things being the same.72 Basically, if DSWD used stringent criteria to identify poor households, it will decrease the number of households that will be included in the program. This will then increase the

67 Dr. Dennis S. Mapa and Prof. Manuel Leonard F. Albis, New Proxy Means Models: Improving Targeting of the Poor for Social Protection, Technical Note, DSWD, p. 1. 68 EO No. 867, s. 2010 - Providing for the Adoption of the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction as the Mechanism for Identifying Poor Households who Shall be Recipients of Social Protection Programs Nationwide. 69 Listahanan Operations Manual, supra note 66, p. 16. 70 Republic Act No. 10651 or the 2015 General Appropriations Act, Volume II A & B p. 2664. 71 Mapa, supra note 67, p. 6. 72 Ibid, p. 3.

Page 24 PAO-2017-01


number of households who may be considered poor but excluded from the program. On the other hand, if DSWD loosen its criteria, it will increase the number of households that will be included. This will then increase the number of households who may be considered non-poor but included in the program. After review by WB, the leakage rate has been determined to be at 35%. According to the WB, “of the program’s total beneficiaries, 65 percent are income poor and 35 percent non-poor.”73 However, it should be noted that, for WB, this is an excellent result by international standards and that despite 4Ps’ rapid expansion, the program maintains good levels of targeting accuracy especially when compared to CCT programs of other countries.74 We submit, however, that while a 35% leakage rate may be acceptable by international standards, the Philippines still needs to improve its efforts to reduce the leakage rate considering the country’s limited resources. In the 2015 National Household Assessment, DSWD reconfigured the PMT expecting to decrease both exclusion and inclusion rates at an acceptable level.75 On one hand, by reconfiguring the PMT, DSWD will be able to address the issue on the leakage rate. On the other hand, since DSWD used different tools in 2009 and 2015, the data would be incomparable. It will then be difficult to track the progress of the beneficiaries because DSWD assessed the beneficiaries using different standards.76 In addition, this further supports the previous finding that the delay in the assessment compromised the operations of 4Ps since it has been established that DSWD has been using a list of beneficiaries with high inclusion and exclusion rates. Further delay in validating the list of non-poor beneficiaries would increase the incidence of releasing grants to non-deserving households. Data gathering. The PMT model is highly dependent on the quality of data that will be placed into the system. Incorrect data will produce an incorrect list of poor households. We interviewed some of the enumerators of the Listahanan to get a sense of how they ensured that the data that they are gathering are accurate. According to them, there are administrative protocols introduced in the 2015 National Household Assessment that were not implemented in 2009. An example would be the use of tablets during assessment. In 2009, the assessment was purely done with pen and paper. Hence, there is a separate process period for encoding. In 2015, with the introduction of tablets, enumerators may encode data on the spot.77 Another protocol introduced in the 2015 National Household Assessment is the strict mandate of the enumerators to inspect the interiors of the house. Inspecting housing conditions formed an integral part of the household assessment. The existence of certain household appliance or amenity may separate eligible from ineligible households. This is one of the reasons why it is important to have accurate data gathering. However,

73 Pablo Ariel Acosta and Rashiel Velarde, Sa Pantawid, Malapit nang Makatawid! (With Pantawid, we are closer to getting out of poverty!) An Update of the Philippine Conditional Cash Transfer’s Implementation Performance, Philippine Protection Note, World Bank and Australian Aid, October 2015, p. 7. 74 Ibid. 75 Mapa, supra note 67, p. 4. 76 Interview with the Division Chief of the BDMD, DSWD, dated May 11, 2017, pp. 5-6. 77 Mini-FGD with Listahanan Enumerators, Quezon City dated May 4, 2017, p. 2.

Page 25 PAO-2017-01


as experienced during the 2009 National Household Assessment, there are enumerators who were not able to inspect the interior of the homes that they surveyed. In order to avoid the same practice, Listahanan made it mandatory for enumerators to go inside the homes being surveyed.78 Monitoring enumerators during assessments is very hard, especially for assessments as enormous as the National Household Assessment. There have been accounts from the enumerators that they have peers on the field who are more concerned with meeting the quota than ensuring that the data collected are complete and accurate. According to them, they have a quota of 20 households per day and that they are getting paid at ₱16.00 per household. Getting data would be easy if the households consisted only of three members. However, with 10 household members, a full day will not be sufficient in order to reach the 20 household quota. Hence, some enumerators resorted to cutting corners by registering more than one household from a single family, the enumerators called it “chinop-chop”.79 This has been confirmed by the BDMD during its validation. According to BDMD, the documents containing the names of prospective beneficiaries provided to it during beneficiary registration contain inaccurate information. Hence, correcting and updating the beneficiary profile took longer than expected.80 Furthermore, there is frequent disparity in the results between field validation and the PMT results.81 There are cases wherein results show that households found poor during field validation but are found non-poor, based on PMT.82

Initially, Listahanan was the only source of potential beneficiaries for 4Ps. But it has innate deficiencies in its design which causes the exclusion of a segment of the society most in need of assistance. Hence, in 2014, DSWD, through NAC Resolution Nos. 6, 17, 19 and 21 adopted a Modified Conditional Cash Transfer Program (MCCT) to target poor households not covered by Listahanan.83 According to the 4Ps Operations Manual, there were at least three major reasons to explain the intent of the MCCT: (1) There are poor households who could not qualify either with Pantawid or other Protective Programs due to the fact they do not meet the minimum requirements. These poor households are in reality prejudiced by their exclusion in the enumeration of the National Housing Targeting Office; (2) There are households tagged by NHTO as non-poor or near poor who might have fallen to poverty overtime; and (3) the timeline required to validate and register the households under the Regular CCT is rigorous and more source intensive which counters the urgency of providing cash grants as part of the recovery phase.84 There are three types of family situation that this approach targets. The first targets are homeless street families (HSF), including the itinerant Indigenous People. The second targets are the Indigenous Peoples in Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas (IP in GIDA) and lastly, are the Families in Need of Special Protection (FNSP) are the disaster

78 Ibid, p. 4. 79 Ibid. 80 Interview with the Division Chief of the BDMD dated May 11, 2017. 81 Maria Catalina M. Tolentino, Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, Grievance Redress System, Assessment and Enhancement of the Processes, 2014, p. 42 82 Ibid. 83 National Advisory Council Resolution No. 31, s. 2016, p. 1. 84 4Ps Operations Manual, supra note 10, p. 59.

Innate deficiencies in the design of the Listahanan necessitated the creation of the Modified Conditional Cash Transfer Program

Page 26 PAO-2017-01


stricken families, IP not found in GIDA and other vulnerable groups under hazardous and disabling working conditions.85

Homeless Street Families are families who consider the street as their permanent abode. These are families who live on the street/occupy vacant areas not suitable for dwelling, spend most of their time on the street, living, working and playing. These families often create a sort of neighborhood among fellow street families, and they occupy space as their shelter, like wooden pushcarts, under the bridges, cemetery or any vacant space not for human habitation and moving from one place to another.86

Indigenous People in Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas. As stipulated in the IP participation Framework that the Pantawid Program shall give attention to ensuring that all aspect of the program are culturally sensitive and responsive. It is therefore necessary to reach and provide needed services in the ICCs who are left out by the regular CCT due to physical distance.87

Family In Need of Special Protection caters to sectors that have special cases and needs that require support intervention. It uses the case management process to uplift the social functioning of the families from acute disequilibrium or imbalance until they are able to adapt or adjust to their reality situation.88

Based on DSWD data, 4Ps has registered 231,572 households through the MCCT since it started in 2014. Of the total number of households registered, 205,320 households were registered in 2014 while 26,252 households were registered in 2015.89 MCCT households comprise approximately 5% of the total number of beneficiaries under the program. Beneficiary Data Management System (BDMS) is another major system supporting the operations of 4Ps. It ensures that all validated eligible households are enrolled in the program and the beneficiary data used in the program implementation is updated and accurate. This is another component of 4Ps which ensures that only eligible beneficiaries receive the grants. However, pursuant to its mandate under the 4Ps Operations Manual, it is only limited to verifying whether households identified by Listahanan have children ages 0-18 or a pregnant member. Upon evaluation, we found that the BDMS have encountered three (3) notable problems: (1) incompleteness of the data provided to it during beneficiary registration; (2) rapid expansion of the program; and (3) the incidence of lags and shutdowns of the IT systems.

On the issue of incompleteness of the data. As mentioned in the previous subsection, the documents containing the names of prospective beneficiaries provided to BDMD during beneficiary registration contain incomplete information. Hence, correcting and updating the beneficiary profile took longer than expected. 90 Aside from incompleteness, BDMD also encountered duplicates and outliers in the list. As of April 30, 2017, a total of 115,926 households were validated and tagged as duplicates by the BDMD. Of this number, 99,605 were found to be duplicates of the

85 Ibid, p. 59. 86 Ibid, p. 60. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Joint WB-ADB Review Mission, supra note 26, slide 2. 90 BDMD Interview, supra note 80, p. 2.

Problems with the incompleteness of the data and the rapid expansion of the program made it difficult to eliminate duplicates and outliers in the database

Page 27 PAO-2017-01


existing households before registration. Meanwhile, there are 16,321 households who were found as duplicates after they were registered.91 As for outliers, BDMD found that there were registered households without a household head in the list. A total of 3,357 households were found to have no household head per data provided by Listahanan for the 2014 (Set 7E) registration. The information on the head of the household is important in the implementation of the program as the selection of the beneficiaries for education compliance monitoring and other eligible members is dependent on their relationship with household head. Of this number, 2,030 households were registered in the program while 1,327 were not.92 Because of the existence of the aforementioned duplicates and outliers, BDMD had to exert extra effort in correcting and updating the beneficiary profiles in the PPIS. This is the reason why we asked them if they are still going to use the list produced by Listahanan. According to BDMD, pursuant to the 4Ps Operations Manual, they are required to use the list. Furthermore, it is up to the management to decide whether or not they will use it. However, if they were given a choice, they will less likely use the list because of the abovementioned reasons.93 We note that the General Appropriation Acts up to 2016 provide that 4Ps shall cover only beneficiaries under the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction and victims of natural and man-made calamities who became homeless and have lost their means of livelihood as determined by DSWD.94 However, in the 2017 General Appropriations Act, Congress broadened the scope and lifted the aforementioned limitations.95 Hence, the DSWD has more leeway in covering household beneficiaries and that they have the option of not using the list produced by Listahanan. On the issue of rapid expansion. From 2008-2016, the number of the

beneficiaries covered in the program ballooned from about 282,917 households to 4.4 million households. With the rapid expansion and the problems with the list of prospective beneficiaries, BDMD had limited time at its disposal. Hence, BDMD had to choose which aspect of the work it will prioritize. Since household coverage is the priority pursuant to the directives of the President and top management, BDMD focused more on mass registration. It was only in 2015 that BDMD had the opportunity to go back and clean its database since at this point it has already reached its peak coverage.96 It should be noted, however, that according to DSWD there was already a conscious effort on their part to clean its data even before 2015. In fact, identified duplicates were validated even before the registration and correction/updating of information was done during the registration of households. But data cleaning was strengthened and was given focus in 2015 when there was no more additional household registration. On the issue of IT systems lags and shutdowns. Ideally, the IT systems should have helped BDMD in reducing its process time. According to BDMD, the database and supporting structure was designed to handle 300,000 households but the program rapidly expanded to nearly 4.4 million households. As a result, systems users have been encountering

91 Summary of Households Tagged as Duplicates Per Region dated April 30, 2017. 92 Summary of households with No Household Heads per Data Provided by Listahanan I. 93 BDMD Interview, supra note 80, p. 6. 94 Special Provision no. 1, DSWD, 2016 General Appropriations Act. 95 Special Provision no. 1, DSWD, 2017 General Appropriations Act. 96 BDMD Interview, dated March 22, 2017, p. 5.

Page 28 PAO-2017-01


systems lags and shutdowns, thereby increasing the time to finish their processes. Significant upgrades were introduced in 2015.97 However, program implementers clarified that while BDMD encountered challenges in the IT system support, the Information Management Bureau (IMB) has provided solutions such as facilitating the BDM system enhancements, to catch up the growing data management needs. Upgrades and system enhancement were made even before 2015. But one of the milestones of the BDM system is the Offline system, which was developed and deployed in 2015. Offline Encoding Systems were developed to address difficulties in the IT support and operational issues.98 Nevertheless, DSWD recognized these problems in their Information Systems Strategic Plan (ISSP) for 2015-2017. In the ISSP, DSWD planned to enhance the following: (1) Listahanan; (2) Eligibility Check Routine; (3) Community Assembly Registration System; and (4) the Beneficiary Update System. The ISSP further stated that these systems had to be upgraded because of the following: (1) Discrepancies, duplicates and/or errors in beneficiaries’ data; (2) Potential threats and risks that may affect data, applications, hardware and transactions e.g. hacking, hardware malfunction, bugs in systems, accidental errors in system, operation or utilization, power outages, and others; (3) Lack of hardware or lack of access to hardware; (4) Absence or lack of access to internet services; and (5) Lack of access to data produced internal source transactions systems.99

Compliance Verification System (CVS) is another major system of 4Ps. CVS is the system used by DSWD to monitor the faithfulness of the beneficiaries in complying with the conditions set by the program. The compliance data produced by this system is the basis for the amount of cash grants that will be released to the beneficiaries. As discussed in the background, DSWD conducts compliance monitoring in partnership with DepEd and DOH. DepEd helps in monitoring the education compliance while the DOH monitors health compliance. CVS heavily depends on its field employees, called Municipal Links / City Links (ML/CL). Apart from monitoring compliance with the Family Development Sessions, they distribute and collect the compliance forms to and from DepEd and DOH. ML/CLs also receive complaints whenever any person wants to file their grievances. They also serve as liaison officers to the beneficiaries. Upon evaluation, we found that CVS encountered 2 notable problems in its operations; (1) IT systems lags and shutdowns; and (2) the amount of caseload assigned to the ML/CLs. On the IT systems lags and shutdowns. CVS basically encountered the same problems with the BDMS, in that instead of reducing the process time, the IT system increased it due to frequent incidence of lags and shutdowns. However, with the introduction of upgrades, hopefully, existing issues will be resolved.100

97 Ibid. 98 Exit Conference, supra note 33, p. 7. 99 Information Systems Strategic Plan (ISSP) for 2015-2017, p. 46. 100 Interview with the Division Chief of CVD dated March 22, 2017, pp. 7-8.

The rapid expansion of the program made it difficult for field workers to adjust with their increased caseload

Page 29 PAO-2017-01


According to DSWD, to date, the server capacity and internet bandwidth used by the CVS systems are improved along with the upgrades of overall IT solutions provided for 4Ps. IT resources at the regional offices are improved. Additional resources for the Internet Protocol Virtual Private Network (IPVPN) are provisioned to DSWD central office, remote data center, and 16 field offices. The IPVPN ensures faster, secured and more reliable access to the intranet applications of DSWD including 4Ps. Internet connection provision are also extended to Provincial Operations Offices (POO). This has translated to increase in page-loading and data processing time that allows CV forms encoding faster than the previous years.101 On the amount of caseload assigned to the ML/CLs. Since DSWD

focused on mass registration, beneficiary coverage increased at a very rapid pace. However, such increase was not supported by an equitable increase in the number of employees. As a result, field employees had to manage more than the DSWD’s ideal number of households. Figure 19 show the significant difference between the increase in beneficiaries and the increase of employees. The number of beneficiaries quadrupled from 2010 to 2015 while the number of employees barely even doubled on the same period. This affected the quality of work of the field employees. PSRC observed that “implementers in non-compliant regions are spread thinly and are saddled with other administrative duties, hindering them from working on their responsibilities to the program.102

ML/CL has an average caseload of 800 households. The range of caseload of ML/CL can be as low as 500 or as high as 1,400 households. PMED has conducted an informal survey among the ML/CLs regarding their thoughts on their caseloads. Some say that they could handle 400, others say 250. But ML/CLs who are also Social Workers say that the ideal ratio is 1:25.103 PMED further added that, prior to 4Ps, no social worker handled hundreds of clients at a time.104 PSRC, in its study, echoed the same observations. Hence, they recommended that DSWD should “ensure enough manpower and manageable caseload (ideally 1 CL/ML: 200-300 beneficiaries) for program implementers so that they can

101 Exit Conference, supra note 33, p. 9. 102 PSRC Study, supra note 35, p. 79. 103 PMED Interview, supra note 25, pp. 9-11. 104 Ibid.

Source: DSWD

Figure 19: Comparative Charts of Beneficiary Increase and Employee Increase

Page 30 PAO-2017-01


be in the field more to establish solid relationships with beneficiaries.”105 The DSWD had requested for additional budget to acquire additional employees for the program but the Department of Budget and Management denied the same.106 To adapt to the growing demands of their work, ML/CLs implemented different schemes which are detrimental to the quality of their work. An example would be the delegation of ML/CL work to parent leaders. In the evaluation report of PSRC, they observed that “in NCR, city links tap parent leaders to help them in monitoring and providing assistance to the beneficiaries. However, unlike parent leaders in the city of Taguig who are simply tasked to carry out basic information dissemination or monitoring, parent leaders designated in Manila and Makati are given duties that are similar to that of the city links themselves. In the interviews, it was discovered that they are usually asked to monitor their fellow beneficiaries, update them about the latest announcements, remind them about the conditionalities that they have to follow, help collect their requirements like their proof of enrolment, assist them in different system requirements whenever needed and even distribute or hold on to forms that their fellow beneficiaries will need.”107 PSRC further stated that “delegating such responsibilities to parent leaders who themselves are not equipped to handle these duties is problematic and often results in negative consequences. Such a consequence is that the information relayed by these overburdened parent leaders often turn out to be inaccurate, which further perpetuates the misinformation among program beneficiaries in the area.”108

The Grievance Redress System (GRS) is the system that captures and resolves grievances related to program implementation. GRD, through the GRS, receive grievances from all levels, with the intent to resolve these in a timely manner. GRD Accomplishment Data as of February 2017 indicate that the division has a 100% Resolution Rate for the years 2013-2015.109 But for year 2016, it achieved only 68.56%. However, it should be noted that the data do not reflect the actual disposition of complaints since requests for inclusion were recorded as resolved even though the complaints with were still pending in Listahanan. As an interim measure GRD referred requests for inclusion to other divisions providing social interventions.110 The GRS has undergone several enhancements through the years to ensure that all concerns are adequately and promptly addressed. Among the criticisms against GRS before was that the fact finding and case resolution were slow. The Integrated Final Report on the Assessment and Enhancement of the Business Processes of the Grievance Redress System attributed this “to the absence of clear accountability, resulting to personnel’s lack of motivation for timely resolutions. There are no clear and explicit accountabilities indicated in the system, neither in the

105 PSRC Study, supra note 35, p. 82. 106 Exit Conference, supra note 33, p. 2. 107 PSRC Study, supra note 35, p. 63. 108 Ibid. 109 Grievance Redress Transaction per Region as of February 2017. 110 Interview with the Division Chief of GRD dated May 15, 2017, p. 4.

Even with the continuous developments and enhancements, the Grievance Redress System still has room for improvements

Page 31 PAO-2017-01


Figure 20: Number and Types of Complaints Filed Yearly


flowcharts nor in the procedures.”111 Hence, when the DSWD reformulated its Grievance Redress Manual at the end of 2013, it ensured that it contains standardized procedures in order to make grievance management time bound. Figure 20 shows the number and types of complaints filed per year. Payment-related issues and complaints “for not being listed” comprise the bulk of the complaints receive by the GRD.

`

Even with the enhancements introduced, GRS still encountered three (3) notable problems in its operations: (1) it is not capturing the identified leak in the database; (2) the IT System failed to deliver the expected services; and (3) “not listed” complaints are not being promptly acted upon. On the issue of not capturing the identified leak in the database. As

mentioned earlier, the WB reported that 4Ps has a leakage rate of 35%. Furthermore, Listahanan identified, through an improved PMT, approximately 1.3 million non-poor households among those currently covered in the program. However, GRS Data as of May 22, 2017 indicate that DSWD was only able to delist 73,388 households through GRS since the program started in 2008. Of the 73,388 households, 5,637 were delisted for fraud, 36,362 for waiver, and 31,389 for ineligibility. Delisted due to fraud include those household-beneficiaries delisted from the program who have proven to have committed: (1) illegal fee collection from co-beneficiaries; (2) false representation; (3) misbehavior (involvement in cash card pawning, gambling, vices and other illegal activities). Delisted

111 Tolentino, supra note 81, p. 13.

2013 2014 2015

59% 32%

39% 48% 60% 27%

Source: DSWD

2016

74.66%%

8%

Page 32 PAO-2017-01


Figure 21: Amount Allocated to GRS Delisted Households

Figure 22: Amount Already Disbursed to GRS Delisted

Households

due to waiver include those who have voluntarily waived their rights (benefits) from the program. These are households who believe that they were misclassified as poor. Delisted due to ineligibility include household-beneficiaries removed from the program due to having: (1) regular income or regular job; (2) property ownership; and (3) support from relatives abroad. 112 To highlight the importance of immediately capturing the leak in the program, Figure 21 shows the amount allocated to GRS delisted households. Of the 73,388 households delisted, 26,361 are also listed in the list of households with payrolls. From 2008-2017, DSWD has allocated ₱430,304,900.00 to pay the grants of these households. Figure 22 shows that of the amount allocated, ₱64,149,400.00 were already claimed by some of the delisted beneficiaries. However, Figure 22 also includes disbursements to households who were delisted due to fraud. Hence, some of the amounts may have been disbursed to some of the households while they were still eligible. Please note further that after sampling some of the active households, we have discovered that although the household had already been paid, the “Claim Status” value for these records still show the value, “Pending” instead of “Claimed”. Hence, the amount indicated may still increase. Nonetheless, the point is that these delisted households are only 2% of the 1.3 million potential non-poor households identified by Listahanan.

The period for delisting a household differ based on the nature of the complaint lodged against them. Those reported for collecting fees, misuse of cash grants, or doing fraudulent acts, the GRS manual prescribes that

112 Elvie Umpad, Re: Data On Delisted Households (GRS Process) COA Data Request, sent to Gerverlyn Mila on Monday, May 22, 2017 through email.

Source: COA analysis of DSWD data

Page 33 PAO-2017-01


proceedings should only take 20-41 working days; for misrepresentation and connivance / collusion and providing false information, 25-28 days; and for ineligibility, 85 working days excluding appeals. Appeals, as prescribed in the GRS Manual 140 days to process. Apart from delisting households from the PPIS and immediately stopping payment of grants, the agency also collects overpayment. However, the GRS Manual does not indicate whether the agency provides additional sanctions, such as blacklisting, against those who committed fraud. On the issue of IT systems. For the period covering 2009 to 2012, the GRS data were recorded in the Field Office and Data Entry Application database. In 2012, DSWD procured the Unified Information and Communication System- Customer Relations Manager (UNICS-CRM) but the contract was terminated in April 2016 due to unresolved licensing issues. Currently, GRS uses MS Excel to record the grievances. IMB has designed an application that would ease the burden of encoding.113 According to program implementers, having UNICS-CRM did not really make a significant difference. It is out-moded and it lacked templates for encoding and recording. In 4 years of its application, it failed to deliver the required Business Process Outsourcing Industries System. Furthermore, the system already exceeded its capacity. Being unable to install the latest version of the program, the system could not anymore handle the voluminous data that it is receiving. The IT problems continued until the entire system eventually shutdown in 2016.114 In the Integrated Final Report on the Assessment and Enhancement of the Business Processes of the Grievance Redress System, the WB consultant observed that the “IT weaknesses impair encoding.”115 As a result, the resolution rate may not be an aggregate figure because it does not include the unencoded.116 According to DSWD, to date, all data in UNICS-CRM was archived and migrated to the new Grievance Redress Information System deployed to production site last September 2016. Backlogs acquired during the downtime (March to September 2016) was being encoded in the central office by NPMO-GRD staff. By NPMO-GRD management decision, they advise Regions to document grievances thru excel and to be encoded in the new application system by the staff in the central office while the changes on the GRS Form is being integrated to the new application system.117 On the issue of “not listed” complaints not being promptly acted upon. Issues not resolved by the Listahanan, BDMS, or the CVS may be resolved by the GRS. Poor households who were not covered by the National Household Survey may go to DSWD, through the GRD, and request to be included in the program. According to the GRD Manual, beneficiaries not listed in the Listahanan may go to GRD and apply for an On Demand Assessment in order to be included in the 4Ps.118 GRD will evaluate first if the applicant was not included in the list of poor households. If they are, then GRD will process their inclusion. However, if they are not, their application will be referred to the Listahanan for

113 Milestone of GRS, p. 5. 114 GRD Interview, supra note 110, p. 1, 7 115 Tolentino, supra note 81, p. 13. 116 Ibid. 117 Exit Conference, supra note 33, p. 10. 118 Grievance Redress Manual, DSWD, 2013 ed., p. 30.

Page 34 PAO-2017-01


assessment. If the applicant qualified under the PMT, their inclusion in the program will be processed.119 However, according to program implementers, On Demand Applications took so long to process. From 2013-2016, GRD has accumulated 216,619 “not listed” complaints. GRD has referred all these complaints to Listahanan, however, none has been resolved. 120 Based on GRS data, from 2009-2016, the GRD received a total of 810,061 complaints. “Not listed” complaints comprised 26.7% of all the complaints received by the GRD. In effect, contrary to its reports that it has 100% resolution rate for years 2013 -2015, GRS only has a 73.3% resolution rate.

119 Ibid, p. 29–32. 120 GRD Interview, supra note 110, p. 4.

Page 35 PAO-2017-01

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Even with the effort of

the DSWD to cleanse its database, duplicates and outliers still exist

Figure 23: Number of Households Delisted or Removed


In 2015, when the target number of households had already been reached, the DSWD shifted its focus towards data cleansing to rid its database of outliers, duplicates, unqualified and invalid beneficiaries.121 However, even with focused efforts in cleaning the database, we still found additional duplicate entries in the database. The existence of duplicates in the database led to the unauthorized release of grants amounting to about ₱335,485,000.00. The Pantawid Pamilya Information System or the PPIS is the central IT system used to support the monitoring operations of the program. However, like Listahanan, the quality of its output heavily depends on the quality of the data that will be gathered. As mentioned earlier, the agency’s focus on rapidly expanding the program has also compromised the integrity of the PPIS since DSWD failed to ensure the quality of data gathered during household assessments. With compromised information systems, leakage due to the existence of duplicates became inevitable. As of April 2017, the agency has delisted or removed from the program 121,831 households due to various reasons such as fraud, duplicate registration, waiver of the household, ineligibility, absence of eligible household members for compliance verification, and having a regular source of income.

121 BDMD Interview, supra note 80, p.5.

Source: DSWD

Page 36 PAO-2017-01


Figure 24: Number of Identified Duplicates


Figure 25: Number of Outliers in the List of Households


The agency has also identified 15,898 duplicates, most of which come from the ARMM.

Despite the agency’s data cleansing efforts, previous COA audits found that there are multiple instances of duplicate households and exclusion of compliant households from the payroll as indicated in COA Audit Observation Memoranda (AOM) for the years 2010-2015,122 indicating difficulty on the part of DSWD in ensuring clean data. Upon evaluation of our own sample, we found 341 beneficiaries with ages above 100 years old. Out of this number, 140 are active. The ages ranged from 101 to 2017. Those aged 2017 years old show that their recorded birthdate is zero (00/00/0000).

122 2010 DSWD Annual Audit Report of COA, p. 55; 2011 DSWD Annual Audit Report of COA, p. 106; 2012 DSWD Annual Audit Report of COA, p. 37; 2013 DSWD Annual Audit Report of COA, p. 51; 2014 DSWD Annual Audit Report of COA, p. 97; 2015 Annual Audit Report of COA, p. 101.

Source: DSWD

Page 37 PAO-2017-01


Figure 26: Number of Outliers Found in the Household Roster


Figure 27: Number of Additional Duplicates Found in the PPIS

The data also shows the same trend in the household roster with some in the roster having ages above 100 years old. It is to be noted that the 4Ps only accepts children below 18 years old in the household roster.123 Data shows 6,165 household members having age ranges from 101 to 2017 with 5,662 currently active and being monitored in the compliance verification system.

Upon presentation with the DSWD, the agency commented that in the PPIS that there are 5,612 individuals with the aforesaid age of which 5,163 are still active now. Among the 5,612 individuals, 5,611 are not tied to grants. This means that their ages (100) do not affect the provision of grants to the households. DSWD added that due to the voluminous data managed by 4Ps, it prioritized updating the information that are related to grants. Hence, the birthdate of these 5,611 individuals were not yet validated by the RPMO.124 We also checked for duplicates from the data directly obtained from the PPIS databases. Although many duplicates have already been identified and delisted previously, we were still able to find 49,727 duplicate names in the Household Beneficiaries list. Out of this number, 20,870 are currently active.

123 4Ps Operations Manual, supra note 10, p.1. 124 Exit Conference, supra note 33, pp. 11-12.


Page 38 PAO-2017-01


Figure 28: Number of Active Duplicates Found in the PPIS

Out of the 20,870 active duplicates, 16,776 have had their duplicates either deactivated or delisted. The remaining 4,094 names however still have duplicates that remain active.

Upon presentation of the finding to DSWD, the agency commented that on the 4,094 duplicate household names, 3,564 (87%) had been previously identified as possible duplicates. Of this, 3,301 are validated to be different hence, they are currently active. On the other hand, the 259 are found by the NPMO as having the same household composition. Of this, 5 are now tagged as duplicate in the PPIS while the 254 are deactivated and their cash grants are on hold while the validation is yet to be completed. Meanwhile, out of the 530 newly identified as possible duplicate, 2 are now tagged as duplicate, 3 are deactivated and 525 have their grants on hold while the validation is yet to be completed.125 The defects in the data were caused by either the failure or the absence of input controls during the data collection done by Listahanan. DSWD has invested considerable amounts on projects that would improve the Listahanan system such as the “Enhancement of the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR) Information System and Supporting ICT Infrastructure Project” worth ₱ 315,252,355.90 and the “Supply and Delivery of Laptop Computers for NHTO – Nationwide Household Assessment” worth ₱95,876,925.00. Despite these investments however, the issues on data quality continue to exist and the programs and agencies that depend on this data such as the Pantawid Program and Philhealth are adversely affected.

125 Exit Conference, supra note 33.


l

Page 39 PAO-2017-01


Figure 29: Amounts Recorded as “Claimed” by Delisted Duplicates

To get a better picture of the effect of these data defects on the 4Ps’ implementation, we gathered data on its financial impact. We obtained the list of delisted duplicate households and determined the amounts paid to them by looking at their payroll history. The table below shows the amounts paid to 25,410 validated and delisted duplicates grouped by region as of April 17, 2017 and the amounts paid to these beneficiaries. Figure 29 shows that DSWD released an amount of ₱335,485,000.00 to duplicate households. In our working paper, we have excluded the records of those whose data values in the “Payment Status” column are either “Cancelled”, “Decertified”, or “Disapproved”. We have however included the records whose data values in the “Claim Status” column are either “Pending”, “For Approval”, or “For Recommendation”. The reason for this is that we could not rely on the information provided by the “Claim Status” column. After sampling some of the active households, we discovered that although the household had already been paid, the “Claim Status” value for these records still show the value, “Pending” instead of “Claimed”.

The households with “Unknown” region refer to the initial batches of beneficiaries in the program who registered from 2008 to 2010. The details of their region were previously not encoded into the database. They may belong in any of the 18 regions. In response to the above findings, the DSWD said that based on their existing procedures, only those transactions with “funded” as payment status are considered completed transactions or those with complete documentation such as approved checks or List of Due and Demandable Accounts Payable-Advice to Debit Account (LDDAP-ADA), thus the


Page 40 PAO-2017-01


Figure 30: Computed Cash Grants of Households who were Subsequently Delisted as Duplicates

Figure 31: Percentage of Yearly Increase/Decrease of Computed Cash Grants of Households who were Subsequently Delisted as

Duplicates Households

computed cash grants should be ₱326,262,300.00 instead of ₱335,485,000.00.

DSWD provided data on the yearly breakdown of computed cash grants allocated to households who were subsequently delisted as duplicates. Figure 30 shows that there is a declining trend in the amount registered as “claimed” by duplicate households. According to the DSWD, this may be considered proof of the Department’s commitment to solve the issue

Furthermore, part of the DSWD’s on-going effort to clean its data of duplicates, is to validate whether or not the grants were actually received by the households with duplicate entries. Grants received by households with duplicate entries will be recovered by the DSWD through its Payment Adjustment System.

DSWD also provided data on the percentage of the yearly decrease / increase of the computed cash grants allocated to duplicate households. Figure 31 shows the drops in percentage.

Year Computed Cash Grants of Hhs

Who Were Subsequently Delisted as Duplicates

% of Yearly Decrease / Increase

2008 12,636,400.00

2009 96,233,600.00

2010 48,061,200.00 -50%

2011 31,500,700.00 -34%

2012 54,724,500.00 74%

2013 52,387,900.00 -4%

2014 22,723,000.00 -57%

2015 6,598,400.00 -71%

2016 1,396,600.00 -79%

Grand Total 326,262,300.00

Source: DSWD Data

Source: DSWD Data

Page 41 PAO-2017-01


Figure 32: Computed Cash Grants vs. Amount Remitted to the Bureau of Treasury (2008-2016)

Figure 33: Comparison of Computed Cash Grants of Households who were Subsequently Delisted as Duplicates to Yearly Budget

The DSWD added that, as a policy, upon discovery of duplicate households, the Department tags the appropriate client status and subsequently remits unclaimed cash grants to the Bureau of Treasury (BTr) as shown in Figure 32.

Year

Computed Cash Grants

Registered as “Claimed” by

Duplicate Households

Total Amount Remitted to BTr

2008-2011 188,431,900.00 841,647,955.84

2012 54,724,500.00 3,463,879.41

2013 52,387,900.00 16,838,264.92

2014 22,723,000.00 32,825,870.00

2015 6,598,400.00 88,289,452.85

2016 1,396,600.00 47,176,406.80

Grand Total 326,262,300.00 1,030,241,829.82

The DSWD also provided data on the comparison between the computed cash grants of households who were subsequently delisted as duplicates and the yearly budget. DSWD argued that the total amount registered as “claimed” by the duplicate households is only 0.11% of the total budget.

Lastly, according to DSWD, they were able to validate about 117,000 duplicate household entries in the Listahanan of which about 80% were prevented to be registered in the program. Only about 20% were detected as duplicates after registration.

YEAR

COMPUTED CASH

GRANTS of HHS

WHO WERE

SUBSEQUENTLY

DELISTED AS

DUPLICATES

YEARLY BUDGET

% of

computed

cash

grants to

Yearly

Budget

2008 12,636,400.00 298,550,000.00 4.23%

2009 96,233,600.00 5,000,000,000.00 1.92%

2010 48,061,200.00 10,000,000,000.00 0.48%

2011 31,500,700.00 21,194,117,000.00 0.15%

2012 54,724,500.00 39,444,651,000.00 0.14%

2013 52,387,900.00 44,255,644,000.00 0.12%

2014 22,723,000.00 62,614,247,000.00 0.04%

2015 6,598,400.00 62,322,890,000.00 0.01%

2016 1,396,600.00 62,665,628,000.00 0.00%

Grand Total 326,262,300.00 307,795,727,000.00 0.11%

Source: DSWD Data

Source: DSWD Data

Page 42 PAO-2017-01


DSWD revealed that part of its on-going effort to clean its data of duplicates, is to validate whether or not the grants were actually received by the households with duplicate entries. DSWD committed that it shall validate the above findings and will provide this Commission updates on the validation results. DSWD also stated that grants received by households with duplicate entries will be recovered by the DSWD through its Payment Adjustment System. In rebuttal, based on the aforementioned response, DSWD has recognized and admitted that there are still data errors in its system and it may have already cost the agency ₱326,262,300.00 based on the data revealed by the PPIS. DSWD tried to downplay the issue by asserting that it is only 0.11% of the entire budget of 4Ps from 2008 to 2016. However, ₱326,262,300.00 is a significant amount. Based on Figure 29, it can support about 25,000 households under the program. But due to the existence of duplicates in the system, about 25,000 deserving households were prevented from receiving assistance from the program. We recognize the efforts of the DSWD in cleaning its database. Figure 30 shows that there is a steady decrease in the amounts registered as “claimed” by duplicate households. However, this data also highlights the failure of DSWD to detect these irregular / unauthorized releases. Most of these irregular/ unauthorized releases, as shown in Figures 30 and 31, can be traced as far back as 2008. It took nine (9) years or this audit for the DSWD to conduct its validation on these irregular / unauthorized releases.

With more than 88% and 90% compliance rate with the health and education conditions of the program, respectively, 4Ps has successfully helped about 9 million children avail the basic health and education services of the government. However, increased access to basic health and education services of the government neither guarantee better health for the children nor preparedness to secure stable jobs.

Furthermore, problems with the Listahanan and the integrity of the database raise questions as to the actual success of the program. The 1.3 million households identified by the Listahanan as non-poor seem to confirm the 35% leakage rate reported by the World Bank. Failure to validate and update the list of poor households prolongs this possible leak.

Upgrading the IT systems is also crucial in ensuring that unauthorized release of grants will be avoided. The upgrades must focus on ensuring the reliability of the database since data issues, such as duplicate entries, had already prevented 25,000 deserving household from receiving grants in the accumulated amount of ₱335,485,000.00.

The current human resources of the DSWD for 4Ps is insufficient. Hence, it is essential to revisit the staffing needs of the program.

Lastly, there is insufficient longitudinal evidence to determine the extent the program contributed to the goal of breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty. At this point, it is difficult to determine how the program has made a difference in bootstrapping beneficiaries out of poverty.

Conclusions

Page 43 PAO-2017-01


Agency Comments

In light of the foregoing, we recommend that the DSWD maintain the suspension of the expansion of the program until it: (1) completes its validation on the transitioning households and delists households identified as non-poor; (2) eliminates duplicates and outliers in the database; (3) completes its Information Technology Systems upgrade, specifically for 4Ps and Listahanan, pursuant to its Information Systems Strategic Plan; and (4) revisits the programs’ staffing needs and request for additional personnel to the DBM, if necessary.

DSWD must also, pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order No. 867, s. 2010, conduct its National Household Assessment every 4 years. As soon as validated by the DSWD, results of the 2015 National Household Assessment must be implemented immediately in order to update the list of beneficiaries under 4Ps. However, for the succeeding National Household Assessments, DSWD must revisit its strategy in conducting the household assessment given their difficulty in ensuring the quality of the data gathered by their enumerators.

Since 2018 is the 10th year of 4Ps, DSWD should conduct an impact evaluation focused on how the program is helping its households break the inter-generational cycle of poverty. We believe that it is already possible for the agency to produce longitudinal evidence to determine if the program is contributing in the decline of poverty incidence and making an impact in the lives of its beneficiaries.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for comment. DSWD provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (02) 952-5700 local 2022 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Performance Audit Office may be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in Appendix III.

In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the COA website at http://www.coa.gov.ph.

ALEXANDER B. JULIANO Assistant Commissioner Special Services Sector

Recommendations

mailto:[email protected]

Page 44 PAO-2017-01

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Appendix I: Percent Distribution of the

Population of High School Graduates by Educational Attainment

According to FLEMMS, of the 81.9 million126 Filipinos aged 6 years and above in 2013, 20.3%127 are High School Graduates only, 4.5%128 Post-Secondary, 9.3%129 College Level, and 11.3%130 College Graduate or higher. In total, 45.4% or 37.18 million Filipinos graduated from high school. The figure is computed as follows:

High School Graduates only

20.3%

Post-Secondary 4.5% College Level 9.3% College Graduate or higher +

11.3%

Total 45.4% Then 81,900,000 x .454 = 37,182,600 or 37.18 million Since the report focuses on High School Graduates only, the new baseline would be 37.18 million or 45.4%. Below is the computation of the percent distribution of the population of high school graduates by educational attainment. For High School Graduates only:

x = 20.3%

45.4%

x = 44.71% or 44.7%

For those who pursued Post-Secondary education:

x = 4.5%

45.4%

x = 9.91% or 9.9%

126 2013 FLEMMS, Supra Note 42, p. 21. 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 130 Ibid.

Computation

Page 45 PAO-2017-01

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Appendix I: Percent Distribution of the

Population of High School Graduates by Educational Attainment

For those who were able to take units in college:

x = 9.3%

45.4%

x = 20.48% or 20.5%

For those who were able to graduate from college or have taken further studies:

x = 11.3%

45.4%

x = 24.89% or 24.9%

Page 46 PAO-2017-01


Figure 34: Survey Results


10/10 say that they have heard of the program

6/10 say that they know the specific amounts given as grants

10/10 believed that the program is successful in helping the poor

9/10 believed that the government should continue the program

We conducted a survey to gauge how well the public knows about 4Ps and its mechanisms. The survey indicates that there is high awareness of the program by the citizens. A little more than half indicated that they know the specifics of the programs such as the amounts of grants given. Almost all respondents believe that the program is helping the poor and that the government should continue it. Even with a small budget for advocacy at ₱60 million (in 2016), 4Ps has attained high awareness rate in the entire country. It is interesting to note that the program’s most effective medium is the dissemination of information through Barangay/City Assemblies with 60.23% of the respondents saying that they learned the program from there. Of the 2,029 individual respondents, 38.15% said that they know some ineligible household-beneficiaries who are covered in the program and that 79.24% are willing to report it to the DSWD. Furthermore, about 85.06% said that they know some households who are not in the program but are eligible to be beneficiaries and 94.09% are willing to advise those eligible households to get enlisted through the DSWD. Perhaps the survey results explain why there are relatively few “ineligibility” complaints and there are relatively more “not listed” complaints in the GRS data. There are lesser individuals who personally know ineligible households within the program than those who knew eligible households who are not part of the program.

Appendix II: Survey on Program Awareness

Page 47 PAO-2017-01


4/10 say that they know some current beneficiaries who are non-poor

8/10 say that they know where to report and are willing to report non-poor

beneficiaries

9/10 say that they know households who are poor but not

beneficiaries of 4Ps

9/10 say that they know that households can go to DSWD for

enlistment

Appendix II: Survey on Program Awareness

Source: COA

* COA surveyed 2029 individuals representing all the regions in the Philippines. Respondents were randomly selected in certain municipalities in all the provinces.

Page 48 PAO-2017-01


Appendix III: COA Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Assistant Commissioner Alexander B. Juliano, (02) 952-5700 local 2022 or [email protected].

In addition to the contact named above, Emelita R. Quirante (Director IV), Michael L. Racelis (Director III), Marilyn B. Miran (Team Supervisor), supervised the audit and the development of the report. Roberto D. Mabagos, Jr., Rosalyn B. Gacula, Karine Joy M. Rosario, Toni Ann F. Figurasin, Gerverlyn Mila, Blaine Jenner A. Bilalat and Diony F. Guillen made key contributions to this report.

COA Contact

Staff Acknowlegments

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

DSWD Should Maintain the Suspension of 4Ps Expansion Until It … · 2017. 11. 3. · Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program as one of the priority programs to be audited. For the past