SiteMap •  Links • Search        
 Like us in Facebook Follow us on Twitter Subscribe to our RSS feeds View mobile edition of our website. Receive updates in e-mail.
       

Headlines

CCT...Pantawid nga ba sa kahirapan?          Filipino Version
by Jose Ramon G. Albert, Ph.D.1

Two weeks ago, we wrote about crime statistics2 and pointed out that income inequality is far more correlated with crime statistics than income poverty or economic growth.3  This suggests why discussion on the need to address income inequality cannot be overemphasized.  Former NEDA Director General Cielito Habito has also pointed out that a big bulk of the growth of the national income is concentrated on the top 40 richest families, which is why the 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan’s overall thrusts is to achieve inclusive growth, with growth being shared by every Filipino (aside from the complementary goal to reduce poverty).  Many poverty analysts would point out the poverty reduction can largely be attributed to either income growths or changes in the distribution of income, particularly the reduction of income inequality. But what exactly does reducing income inequality mean. We thought it would be important for people to understand one of the government’s flagship programs on social protection – the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Program or the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) – and explain why this program is now considered the fundamental reason why many South American countries have reduced their income inequality and poverty figures from a decade and two decades ago. 

Firstly, we answer the question: what is the CCT Program all about?  Is it a dole out?  Why do several governments across the world conduct this public policy intervention?  What do we expect to gain after investing considerably on the CCTs?  Are we succeeding?

CCT programs provide cash to beneficiaries (i.e. poor families) but with conditions that they must commit to (e.g., school participation of children, maternal care of mother, health care/visits of mothers/children, etc.).  Hence, given that there are conditionalities to the cash transfers, the CCT program is definitely not a dole out.  It is a long term strategy to reduce poverty by building human capital with both the government and families committing to each other.4  

Several countries around the world have adopted CCT programs.  The more popular ones are those conducted by Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia.  For example, Brazil began its Bolsa Familia program in the mid-1990s, piloted in two municipalities.  Presently, it now covers 11 million families.  Brazil’s strategy slightly differed with Mexico by putting greater emphasis on redistribution than on human capital.4  As a result, a New York Times article written by Pullitzer Prize winner Rosenberg cited that before the CCTs, Brazil was one of the most unequal countries in the world.  Rosenberg wrote: “Today, however, Brazil’s level of economic inequality is dropping at a faster rate than that of almost any other country. Between 2003 and 2009, the income of poor Brazilians has grown seven times as much as the income of rich Brazilians. Poverty has fallen during that time from 22 percent of the population to 7 percent.”5    

Would any of you be surprised to know that countries adopting the CCT program have been increasing in the past years. (Figure 1).  In the Philippines, the main implementing agency of the CCT is the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).   The DSWD’s CCT program, called the 4Ps, started in February 2008 with 6,000 household beneficiaries from four pilot municipalities and two cities; this has significantly expanded to approximately 3 million beneficiaries in May 2012.6  The significant jump between the period 2009 and 2010 is expected as the 1st phase of the implementation was during the period 2008/2009.  (Table 1).

In the selection of beneficiaries for the 4Ps, the DSWD firstly used the 2003 city and municipal level poverty estimates generated by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) as one of the references in the identification of priority areas for the implementation of the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR).7  The NHTSPR is an information management system that identifies who and where the poor are in the country.  It uses a Proxy Means Test (PMT) to predict the income of households (using some non monetary indicators) and then utilizes the predicted incomes and the official poverty lines to determine if households are poor.  As a result of the PMT, 5.3 million households were identified as poor out of a total of 10.9 million household enumerated by the DSWD.  You may be aware that the 2009 official count of poor families released by the NSCB is 3.9 million families.  Hence, there is a seeming inconsistency between the two numbers; but that is to be expected mainly due to the differences in methodology – the official poverty statistics uses direct estimates of income from the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) while the NHTSPR used an indirect estimate of income using the PMT.  Note that even if the DSWD used the FIES questionnaire (a very long one!), they would still have numbers a bit different because of the difference in reference periods.  Further, it has also been said that the difference of approximately 1.4 million poor families between the NHTSPR and NSCB accounts for the non-poor who are very close to the poverty line. To empirically check this point, the NSCB made special computations – and found out that by simply increasing the poverty threshold by 10 percent, almost 1.0 million families will fall below the poverty line.  Thus, there is reason to believe that families identified in the NHTS are vulnerable, i.e., at high risk of being poor, even if they are not poor! (Table 2)  

The DSWD is currently working on efforts to update the NHTSPR by next year, as well as improving the PMT model that can be used to identify the poor beneficiaries for future rounds of the CCT, or other government programs for the poor. This is in line with the effort to better identify the poor, in consultation with concerned agencies and experts in this area, including the NSCB.

A recent World Bank report published in January 2013 and launched through a forum held on 1 March 2013, Philippines Conditional Cash Transfer Program, Impact Evaluation 2012, provided highlights of the assessment of the CCT (a first in the series of evaluations).  To quote the Report, “the findings of the impact evaluation support administrative and other assessments that have found that Pantawid Pamilya is reaching most of its key objectives. The impacts found through this study are comparable to the levels of impact found in other CCT programs around the world at this stage of program maturity, particularly in terms of the program’s achievements in improved health service use and school enrollment.”8

More specifically, (Note: the section below is directly lifted from the joint Press Release of the Bank and DSWD.)

It is also worth mentioning that prior to the DSWD’s CCT program, the Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS) has been developed in the early 1990s under the Micro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies (MIMAP) Project -Philippines to provide policymakers and program implementers with an information base for tracking the impacts of macroeconomic reforms and various policy shocks.10 The CBMS is being supported by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), and the CBMS Network as a tool for localizing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the country, among others.11  As of February 29, 2012, CBMS in the Philippines is being implemented in 20,807 barangays in 782 municipalities and 55 cities in 66 provinces (35 of which are provincewide).7   These initiatives, though laudable, still appears to be a challenge for a number of LGUs to undertake as there still remains a significant number who have yet to implement the CBMS – 55.9 percent and 46.7 percent of the total cities and municipalities, respectively, as of January 2013.   And after years since the CBMS was first implemented, while strides have been made in terms of data collection and processing capacities of LGUs, there are concerns on how much capacities have been built on the LGUs to perform data analysis on their own.

Last year the first ever Registry System for Basic Sectors in Agriculture (RSBSA) was implemented by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), together with the National Statistics Office (NSO), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), DILG, and NAPC.  The RSBSA is a nationwide database of baseline information of farmers, farm laborers and fisher folk from identified provinces, as well as geographical coordinates of agricultural and fishery workers households. During the 1st phase, the DBM covered a total of 2.1 million farmers, farm laborers and fisher folk in identified provinces. The 2nd phase of the will cover 55 more provinces.12

And now, the government will need to put all of these data systems together so that there should be a shared government wide database for targeting.  There are current efforts on coming up with a national data unification system.  We look forward to the coming years when we will be able to reap the benefits of targeted interventions. 

But please… let us not forget that most of the impacts of all these interventions will take a while. Many analysts recognize that the full impact of the CCT program will take a while to be felt – this is a case not unique to the Philippines alone but a general phenomenon across countries undertaking such interventions.  Income inequality and poverty reduced in South America, but not immediately. Kaya huwag mainip! There is a time for everything… patience is a virtue, mga cumpañero at cumpañera! 

Happy Women’s Month!

Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at jrg.albert@nscb.gov.ph.

 

 

Filipino Version

“CCT...Pantawid nga ba sa kahirapan?"
Ni Jose Ramon G. Albert, Ph.D.1

Kamakailan lamang, naisulat natin ang mga trends sa crime statistics2 sa ating bansa, kung saan binigyang diin natin na ang hindi pantay na kita o income inequality ay mas may higit na kaugnayan sa crime statistics kaysa sa kahirapan o sa kaunlarang pang-ekonomiya.3 Kaya nga ba ang usapin ukol sa hindi pantay na kita ay hindi dapat ipag-walang bahala. Ito rin ang binigyan pansin ng dating NEDA Director General Cielito Habito sa pagsasabing ang malaking bahagi ng kita ng ating bansa ay nakatuon lamang sa 40 mayayamang pamilya, kaya naman ang pangkalahatang layunin ng 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan ay ang matamo ang “inclusive growth” kung saan ang kaunlaran ay dapat matamasa ng bawat Pilipino, bukod sa pagnanais na mabawasan ang kahirapan sa bansa. Maraming eksperto sa kahirapan ang nagsasabi na ang pagkabawas sa dami ng mahirap o poverty reduction ay maaring makamit sa pamamagitan ng paglago ng kita o pagbabago sa distribusyon ng kita, lalo na ang pagkabawas ng hindi pantay na kita.  Subalit, ano nga ba ang ibig sabihin ng pagbabawas sa hindi pantay na kita? Mas mabuti sigurong maunawaan natin ang isang pangunahing programa ng gobyerno ngayon ukol sa social protection – ang Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Program na mas kilala sa bansag na Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (o 4Ps) – upang maipaliwanang kung bakit ang programang ito ay kinokonsidera ngayon na pangunahing dahilan kung bakit ang maraming bansa sa timog Amerika ang nakaranas ng pagkabawas ng kahirapan at hindi pantay na kita simula ng nagdaang isa o dalawang dekada.

Bago ang lahat, kailangan munang malaman kung ano nga ba talaga ang ibig sabihin ng CCT? Ito nga ba ay “dole out” o pamumudmud ng pera? Bakit may ilang gobyerno sa mundo ang nagpapatupad din nito? Ano ba ang inaasahan nating makamit pagkatapos ng napakalaking halaga na inilaan ng gobyerno para dito? Nagtatagumpay ba tayo?

Ang CCT ay isang programang nagkakaloob ng salapi (cash) para sa mga benepisyaryo nito (mga mahihirap na pamilya) subalit may ilang kondisyon na dapat nilang tuparin (tulad ng pagpasok ng mga bata sa paaralan, pangangalaga sa kalusugan ng mga buntis, regular na check-up at bakuna sa mga bata, at iba pa). Kaya sa madaling sabi, hindi ito dole out o pamumudmod ng pera.  Sa pangkahalatan, isa itong stratehiya upang malabanan at mabawasan ang kahirapan sa napakahahabang panahon, at mapangalagaan ang  tinatawag na “human capital” kung saan ang gobyerno at ang pamilyang nakikinabang rito ay kapwa sumusunod sa itinatakda ng programang ito.4

Ilang bansa sa mundo ang nakapagpatupad na ng kanilang mga CCT program. Kabilang dito ang ilang mga CCT ng Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. Bilang halimbawa, noong kalagitnaan ng taong 1990, sinimulan ng bansang Brazil ang Bolsa Familia program sa dalawa lamang munisipyo. Sa kasalukuyan, ang nabanggit na programa ay nagbibigay tulong na sa may 11 milyong pamilya. Kaiba ng konti ang stratehiyang ito ng Brazil sa ginawa ng bansang Mexico kung saan mas binigyan tuon nila ang “redistribution” kaysa sa “human capital”.4   Bilang resulta, pinuri ng New York Times ang Brazil sa artilkulong sinulat ni Pullitzer Prize winner Rosenberg kung saan sinabi na noong una ang bansang Brazil ang may pinakamaraming bilang ng hindi pagkakapantay sa mundo. Ayon kay Rosenberg, ang inequality o di pagkakapantay pantay sa Brazil ay bumabagsak ngayon ng mas mabilis na takbo kumpara sa alinmang bansa sa mundo. Sa pagitan ng 2003 at 2009, ang kita ng mahihirap na Brazilians ay lumobo ng pitong beses ng paglaki ng kita ng mga mayayamang Brazilians. Bumaba ang kahirapan mula 22% ng population hanggang 7% na lamang.5

Magugulat ba kayo na malaman na sa loob ng mga nakalipas na taon ay mas maraming bansa na ang nagpapatupad ng programang CCT? (Fig 1) Dito sa ating bansa, ang pangunahing tagapagpatupad ng CCT ay ang Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Sinimulan ng DSWD ang CCT noong Pebrero 2008 na nakatulong sa may 600 household beneficiaries sa apat na pilot municipalities at 2 siyudad.  Noong Mayo 20126, lumawak ang sakop ng programa at naging 3 milyon ang beneficiaries nito. Ang malaking pag-akyat ng bilang mula 2009 at 2010 ay inaasahan dahil kasisimula pa lamang nito noong 2008-2009.  (Table 1)

Sa pagpili ng beneficiaries para sa 4Ps, ginamit muna ng DSWD ang 2003 city and municipal level poverty estimates na nilabas ng National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) bilang isa sa mga references sa pagkilala ng mga priority areas para sa pagpapatupad ng National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR).7 Ang NHTSPR ay isang information management system na nagtuturo sa DSWD kung sino at saan makikita ang mga mahihirap sa ating bansa. Ito ay gumagamit ng Proxy Means Test (PMT) upang makalkula ang kita ng mga tao (gamit ang mga non-monetary indicators tulad ng uri ng bubong na kung saan nakatira ang isang pamilya) at gamitin ang nakalkulang kita kasama ang opisyal na poverty line upang madetermina kung mahirap nga ang taong sinusuri para sa programang ito. Bunga nito, 5.3 milyong pamilya ang nabilang na mahirap, ayon sa pagpiling ginawa ng DSWD mula sa 10.9 milyong pamilya. Sa datos na ipinalabas ng NSCB ukol sa kahirapan, ang bilang ng mga mahihirap na pamilya noong 2009 ay umaabot lamang sa 3.9 milyong pamilya.

Makikita na tila magkaiba ang numerong lumalabas sa mga datos na ito mula sa DSWD at NSCB. Subalit ito ay inaasahan dahil sa magkaibang pamamaraan na pagkuha ng datos ukol sa kita ng pamilya. Ang opisyal na istadistika sa kahirapan na nilabas ng NSCB ay hango sa mga direct estimates ng kita ng mga pamilya mula sa Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) samantalang ang  NHTSPR ay gumamit ng indirect estimates sa pamamagitan ng PMT… at kahit na nga FIES questionnaire pa (na napakahaba) ang ginamit ng DSWD, magkakaroon pa rin ng pagkakaiba sa mga numero dahilan sa di magkaparehong reference period. Dagdag pa rito, ang pagkaka-iba ng humigit kumulang na 1.4 milyong mahirap na pamilya sa pagtaya ng NSCB at NHTSPR ay dahil sa hindi lamang sa pagkakabilang ng mga tinatawag na non poor, kundi sa pagkakabilang din maging ng mga pamilyang malapit na sa poverty line. Upang ito ay mapatunayan, nagsagawa ang NSCB ng isang special computation at napag-alaman na kung dadagdagan ang poverty threshold ng 10%, halos 1 milyong pamilya ang masasabing mahirap. Ibig sabihin, may dahilang paniwalaan na ang pamilyang kabilang sa NHTS ay kasama sa mga pamilyang may malaking tsansa na maging mahirap.  (Table 2)

Sa kasalukuyan, ang DSWD ay gumagawa ng mga hakbangin upang mai-update ang NHTSPR sa susunod na taon, gayundin upang mapagbuti ang PMT model na maaring magamit upang maituro ang mga mahihirap na beneficiaries para sa mga susunod pang programa sa CCT at iba pang programa ng gobyerno para sa mahirap. Ito ay kaugnay ng hangaring mas lalong mapagbuti ang paghahanap ng mga mahihirap, sa pakikipag-ugnayan sa mga ahensya ng gobyerno kasama na ang NSCB.

Sa isang ulat ng World Bank na pinamagatang “Philippines Conditional Cash Transfer Program, Impact Evaluation 2012,” na lumabas noong Enero 2013, at inilunsad noong Marso sa isang Forum, sinasabi na “ang  resulta ng isinagawang impact evaluation ay sumusuporta sa administrative at assessment finding, na ang Pantawid Pamilya ay nakaaabot sa karamihan nitong nakatakdang beneficiaries. Ang “impact level” ng CCT program sa PIlipinas ay katulad din ng “impact level” mula sa ibang bansa habang nagsisimula pa lamang sila sa ganitong programa, lalo na sa layuning matamo ang mas mahusay na serbisyong pang kalusugan at pagpasok ng mga kabataan sa paaralan.8

Mula sa pinagsamang press release ng World Bank and DSWD, narito ang ilang mga impormasyon:

Nararapat ding banggitin na bago pa man ang CCT program at NHTS, naglunsad na din noong 1990s ng tinatawag na Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS) sa ilalim ng Micro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies (MIMAP) Project –Philippines. Ito ay naglalayong maglaan ng mahusay na information base para sa mga policy makers at program implementers upang masundan ang kaganapan sa impact microeconomic reforms at iba pang pagbabago sa ibat ibang policy shocks.10 Ang CBMS ay suportado ng  ibat ibang ahensya ng gobyerno tulad ng Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), at ng CBMS Network bilang isa sa mga pamamaraan sa pagkolekta ng datos sa pagmomonitor ng Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) sa local na pamahalaan.11 Ayon sa huling tala  noong Pebrero 2012, ang CBMS sa Pilipinas ay ipinatutupad sa may 20,807 barangays sa 782 munisipyo, 55 siudad at 66 probinsya. (35 sa mga probinsyang ito ay nagsasagawa ng CBMS sa buong lalawigan)7  

Bagamat natatangi ang gawaing ng CBMS, isang malaking hamon pa rin ito sa ilang mga LGUs na hindi pa nagpapatupad ng nasabing programa, – 55.9 % para sa mga siudad  at 46.7% para sa mga munisipalidad ang wala pang CBMS. (as of January 2013).  Sa loob ng ilang taong pagpapatupad ng CBMS kung saan masasabing nagtagumpay ito sa gawain ng data collection at processing, may ilang katanungang dapat masagot ukol sa kakayanan ng LGUs na magsagawa ng sariling data analysis.

Kamakailan din, ipinatupad ang tinatawag na Registry System for Basic Sectors in Agriculture (RSBSA) ng Department of Budget and Management (DBM), kasama ang National Statistics Office (NSO), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), DILG, at ang NAPC. Ang RSBSA ay isang baseline information database ukol sa mga magsasaka, manggagawa sa bukid at mangingisda mula sa ilang piling lalawigan at mga taong nabibilang sa sector ng pansakahan at pangisdaan sa buong bansa. Sa unang yugto ng RSBSA, may 2.1 milyong magsasaka, manggagawa sa bukid at mangingisda sa ilang piling lalawigan ang nakunan na ng impormasyon. Inaasahan na sa ikalawang yugto ng RSBSA, 55 lalawigan12 naman ang isu-survey.

At ngayon, kinakailangan ng pamahalaan na pagsama-samahin ang lahat ng impormasyong ito sa isang malawakang database upang magamit sa pagtarget ng beneficiaries sa mga programa ng gobyerno. May mga kasalukuyang gawain na tungo sa pagkakaroon ng national data unification system. Ang mas mahalaga ngayon ay ang umasa na sa mga susunod na panahon, makikita natin ang magandang bunga ng mga hakbanging tulungan ang mga mahihirap.

Subalit dapat nating isaalang-alang, na ang impact ng lahat ng hakbanging ito ay hindi agarang mararamdaman. Halimbawa na lang ang CCT program ng DSWD. Huwag isipin na agad agad na makakalaya sa kahirapan ang mga CCT beneficiary, hindi lamang sa Pilipinas pati na rin sa mga CCT sa iba pang bansa sa mundo.   Kaya wag mainip .. may panahon para sa lahat ng bagay. Alalahanin natin na ang pagiging mapagpasyensya ay isang magandang katangian, mga cumpañero at cumpañera! 

Isang Maligayang Pagtanaw ng Women’s Month sa ating lahat!

Kung kayo ay may reaksyon o ibang pananaw ukol sa artikulong ito, mangyari lamang na sumulat sa may akda sa email address na: jrg.albert@nscb.gov.ph.

________________________________

1 Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). The NSCB, a statistical agency functionally attached to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), is the highest policy making and coordinating body on statistical matters in the Philippines. Immediately prior to his appointment at NSCB, Dr. Albert was a Senior Research Fellow at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, a policy think tank attached to NEDA. Dr. Albert finished summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Mathematics from the De La Salle University in 1988. He completed a Master of Science in Statistics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989 and a Ph.D. in Statistics from the same university in 1993. He is an Adjunct Faculty of the Asian Institute of Management. He is also a past President of the Philippine Statistical Association, a Fellow of the Social Weather Stations, and an Elected Regular Member of the National Research Council of the Philippines.

This article was co-written by Ms. Jessamyn O. Encarnacion; Director of the NSCB. This article was translated in Filipino by Mr. Ruben V. Litan, SCO IV of the NSCB. The authors thank Mr. Candido J. Astrologo, Jr, Mr. Noel S. Nepomuceno, Ms. Bernadette B. Balamban, Ms. Mildred B. Addawe, Ms. Mechelle M. Viernes, Ms. Anna Jean Casañas and Mr. Joseph Albert Niño M. Bulan; Director, Information Technology Officer II, SCO VI, SCO V, SCO III, SCO II and SCO I, respectively, for the assistance in the preparation of the article. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSCB and its Technical Staff.

2 Albert, Jose Ramon A., Encarnacion, Jessamyn O., De Costo, Severa B., Gumela, Marietta V., and Clariño, Gerald Junne L. Should We Feel Secure or Insecure During the Impending Elections? National Statistical Coordination Board.  22 February 2013.

3 Confirming a 1998 World Bank study on the determinants of crime rates. Fajnzylber, Pablo, Lederman, Daniel, and Loayza, Norman.  Determinants of Crime Rates in Latin America and the World.  World Bank Latin American and Carribean Studies.  The World Bank. Washington, DC. 1998.

4 World Bank.  CCTs:  Now on Every Continent.  http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTPRRS/EXTCCT/0,,contentMDK:22063209~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:5757745~isCURL:Y,00.html

5 Global Success Stories of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program.  http://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/index.php/news/183-global-success-stories-of-the-conditional-cash-transfer-program-

6 Chaudhury, Nazmul, Friedman, Jed, and Oniki, Junsho.  Philippines Conditional Cash Transfer Program Impact Evaluation 2012.  World Bank. January 2013.

7 For municipalities with poverty incidence 50% and above, data is collected from all households (complete enumeration).  However, for municipalities with below 50% poverty incidence, the DSWD uses 10 local socioeconomic indicators to identify pockets of poverty.  Pockets of poverty is a segment or portion of the community where clusters of poor reside.  It may also be noted that NHTS-PR implements On-Demand Application.

8 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/01/17389714/philippines-conditional-cash-transfer-program-impact-evaluation-2012.  According to the Bank, the assessment is based on the analysis of 1,418 poor households eligible for the program from a survey covering 3,742 households in the provinces of Lanao del Norte, Mountain Province, Negros Occidental, and Occidental Mindoro. (Currently, there are more than 3 million poor families with more than 6 million children benefitting from the program).

9 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/03/01/philippines-conditional-cash-transfer-program-on-track-to-meet-goals-of-keeping-children-healthy-and-in-school.

10 https://www.facebook.com/CBMSPhilippines/info.

11 http://pep-net.org/index.php?id=793

12 http://www.dbm.gov.ph/?p=5229

 



comments powered by Disqus

Figure 1. Conditional Cash Transfers in the World: 1997 and 2008


Source:  Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT), The World Bank; http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCCT/Images/Conditional-Cash-Transfers-large.gif

 

Table 1.Total Number of Pantawid Pamilya Households

Region NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
NCR 23,236 67,080 106,729 206,253
CAR 16,070 30,290 56,556 59,268
Region I 22,596 38,063 126,319 186,214
Region II 16,549 24,823 83,031 94,041
Region III 27,950 38,302 95,623 198,688
Region IV-A 38,492 103,856 171,199 279,039
Region IV-B 77,517 137,958 161,950 174,343
Region V 109,695 265,320 309,321 357,036
Region VI 52,513 194,305 255,877 297,848
Region VII 58,523 140,230 211,511 242,302
Region VIII 83,166 170,827 222,957 253,428
Region IX 131,934 224,084 236,133 283,884
Region X 87,089 211,778 239,996 251,555
Region XI 57,372 129,148 177,510 197,412
Region XII 36,111 140,720 191,560 212,598
ARMM 108,588 284,909 329,392 393,261
Caraga 88,030 143,946 145,866 164,521
Total 337,416 777,505 1,035,431 2,345,639 3,121,530 3,851,691


Source: Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)

 

Table 2. Effect in the Magnitude of Poor Families when Poverty Threshold
is Incresed by 10%-18%

Poverty Line If poverty threshold is increased by Change in daily poverty threshold for a family of 5 Magnitude of poor families Difference from the official estimate of poor families
16,841 0% PhP 231 3,855,730  
18,525 10% PhP 254 4,652,074 796,344
19,367 15% PhP 266 5,047,131 1,191,401
19,536 16% PhP 268 5,126,304 1,270,574
19,704 17% PhP 270 5,211,636 1,355,906
19,872 18% PhP 273 5,289,809 1,434,079

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB)

Posted: 08 March 2013

Related Links

Press Releases

Announcements

Sexy Statistics
StatFocus
Statistically Speaking
 
For the Record
Media Services
Events
 
E-Newsletter
 
jobs@nscb.gov.ph
Bids, Quotations & Canvasses
Share ||
Discuss



             
  Email the Webmaster E-mail the webmaster Terms of Use Home • Top of Page  
 

1997-2014, Philippine Statistics Authority - National Statistical Coordination Board
Makati City, Philippines