NSCB - Statistically Speaking... SAVE OUR CHILDREN! by Dr. Romulo A. Virola

SAVE OUR CHILDREN!

For many of our children, (grandchildren in case of many friends whose years even those expensive diamond peel treatments or glutathione injectables can not hide much longer), it’s school opening time once again. Hopefully, many of these children looked forward to their first day of classes and will have fun. But, we should all know that there are many children out there who, instead of being in school are elsewhere, possibly working to help their parents earn their living or heaven forbid, wasting their young lives away engaging in activities that children should not even know about.

As I have written in the past, education statistics² trumpet all too clearly the systematic deterioration of our human capital. Cohort survival rates, enrolment rates and performance in internationally monitored tests in mathematics and sciences are disheartening to say the least. Yes, we have lost much of the comparative advantage that our national hero, Dr. Jose P. Rizal recognized when he called our youth the hope of the fatherland. Our future has been compromised and before it becomes too late, let us all agree that it is time for ACTION! Calling, Calling then the Council for the Welfare of Children!

Three weeks ago, I was in Bangkok attending a Social Policy Workshop that dwelt on the Global Study on Child Poverty and Disparities Project³upon the invitation of Marinus Gotink and Wilfredo G. Nuqui, Chiefs of the Health and Nutrition Section and Social Policy and Local Development Section, respectively, of UNICEF Manila. Willy always brims with things to do and on the sides of the workshop he would suggest to Tito Rodriguez, Social Policy Specialist, also of UNICEF Manila and myself, various areas of possible collaboration between NSCB and UNICEF. One of the things Willy suggested was the generation of a Child Development Index.

My co-author of this article made a presentation⁴during the International Conference on Rethinking Poverty: Making Policies Work for Children in New York on 21-23, April, 2008 and during the 2008 National and Local Social Policy Workshop in Fontana, Pampanga on 2-4 June 2008. Some disturbing statistics highlighted in Jessa’s presentations are the following:

Children had higher poverty incidence than the general population in 2000 and 2003.⁵ For every 100 individuals about 33 were poor in 2000 and about 30 in 2003. In the case of children the numbers are 43 and 39, respectively (Table 1).
More than half of the poor are children – 14 out of 26 in 2000 and 14 out of 24 in 2003 (Table 1 and Figure 1).
At the provincial level, Maguindanao registered the highest poverty incidence among children in 2000, with 82 out of 100 children found to be poor (Table 2).
Among the 10 provinces with highest poverty incidence among children in 2000, five are included in the list of 10 poorest provinces, i.e., Maguindanao, Agusan del Sur, Sulu, Masbate, and Camarines Norte (Table 2).
In terms of the priority provinces⁶ covered by the Sixth Country Programme for Children (CPC 6) implemented by UNICEF, only half are included in the list of 20 provinces with the highest poverty incidence among children, i.e., Maguindanao, Agusan del Sur, Sulu, Masbate, Sarangani, Sultan Kudarat, Mt. Province, North Cotabato, Negros Oriental, and Northern Samar (Table 2). Could CPC 6 have missed something somewhere? Why?
Other observed patterns on the poverty situation among children:

6.1 The poor children are found more in households with larger family sizes. Almost 7 out of 10 children in households with family size of at least 10 are poor (Table 3 and Figure 2);

6.2 In all regions, poverty incidence among boys is slightly higher compared to girls (Table 4); and

6.3 Among children 12-18 years of age with no education (no grade completed), poverty incidence is highest in ARMM, Region XII, and Caraga and lowest in the National Capital Region (NCR) and Regions I and III (Figure 3). That there are nonpoor families where 12-18 year-old children have had no education could indicate, very sadly indeed, that these children might in fact be working to take the family out of poverty, instead of going to school.

Quite clearly, our children need urgent attention. Indeed, it is imperative that our development agenda prioritize policies and programs geared towards the development of our children. It is easy to say that yes, we are taking measures to make sure that the needs of our children are adequately addressed. But what have we got to show for these measures? How do we know if and how can we prove that indeed, we are making progress? To answer these questions, we need statistics! Sound statistics!

More than ten years ago when the NSCB was tasked to collaborate in the compilation of provincial Human Development Index or HDI⁷ with the Human Development Network (HDN), whose mother (grandmother actually), is the indomitable Mareng Winnie, I had proposed to projectize with UNICEF the compilation of a Child Development Index or CDI. At that time, UNICEF did not seem interested and I am just too happy to pursue our interest on the CDI with UNICEF at this time when it has become all too obvious that our children are at risk! In 2000, we had estimated that 43 out of 100 children were poor or a total of 14,093,102 poor children⁸. In 2003, things got better with the numbers going down to 39 out of a hundred or a total of 13,469, 849 poor children. Child poverty incidence is highest in Caraga and ARMM but the largest concentration of poor children is in Region V with 1.4 million poor children, Region VI with 1.3 million and Region IV-A with 1.1 million (Table 1). Unfortunately, these statistics have not been updated to 2006⁹ because the NSO has not yet released the 2006 Family Income and Expenditures Survey (FIES) and the January 2007 round of the Labor Force Survey (LFS) Public Use Files in the appropriate format.

In the meantime, we have come up with a measure closely aligned with the HDI but constrained by the availability of supporting data. Like the HDI, our preliminary CDI, called CDI 1 consists of three dimensions of child development: health, knowledge, and capacity. They are measured through a Health Index (HI 1), Education Index (EI), and Quantity of Life Index (QOLI). Variables considered are infant mortality rate and child mortality rate for HI 1, elementary net enrolment rate and secondary net enrolment rate for EI, and child poverty incidence for QOLI¹⁰. CDI 1 is simply the equal-weighted average of HI 1, EI, and QOLI.

To inject a rights-based approach to the CDI, we formulated a second CDI, called CDI 2 that includes some additional variables that measure the accountability of the dutybearers. Unfortunately, due to data and time constraints we are able to do this only for the HI, accounting for the percentage of immunized children 9-11 months and the percentage of pregnant women with 3 or more pre-natal visits, and producing a Health Index referred to as HI 2.

We would have wanted the CDI to also capture the family upbringing of the child, knowing that family seems to be the most important source of happiness for Pinoys.¹¹Not only that, the Filipino diaspora has incurred possibly long term social damage to the family life of children who have been left by parents to work abroad. This social cost of the OFW phenomenon has not been measured and should definitely be captured by a CDI. Unfortunately, we do not know of any available data on this.

Brazil has a similar measure, also called the CDI, targeted towards children in the first six years of life, which are considered to be the formative years of their cognitive, emotional and social skills and their physical development. Given this perspective, Brazil’s CDI incorporates variables relating to: 1) supply of health services (i.e., vaccination coverage among children below one year of age – diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DTP) and tetramune and percentage of mothers with adequate pre-natal coverage); 2) supply of education services (i.e., gross preschool enrolment rates); and 3) care and protection that the family provides for children in their early years (i.e., percentage of children below the age of six years living with mothers and fathers that have low schooling levels)¹².

Certainly, we will continue to work on improving the validity and comprehensiveness of the CDI 1 and CDI 2. We will try to make it more rights-based to hold the dutybearers accountable in saving our children. And with the support of UNICEF, we hope to be able to produce provincial and even municipal level CDIs. Certainly too, we hope policymakers, decision-makers including legislators and local government unit (LGU) executives will find the CDI useful and actually use it. Wishful thinking, some may say, but we must continue to dream.

Anyway, here are some highlights of the preliminary Child Development Index:

CDI 1 showed a slight deterioration between 2000 and 2003 from 0.779 to 0.777. If we are to follow the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) classification¹³, this is a “medium” rate of development. But CAR, ARMM, Regions 12, 7, 3, 10 and 5 showed improvements (Table 5).
The two child-poorest regions of ARMM and Caraga have consistently showed poor performances in the CDI, while the NCR, Regions III and IV-A have consistently posted high levels of development among their children (Table 5).
Gains were observed in HI 1 (i.e., from 0.972 in 2000 to 0.979 in 2003) (Table 6) and QOLI (i.e., from 0.575 to 0.612) (Table 8), but a large drop in EI was observed from 0.790 in 2000 down to 0.739 in 2003 (Table 7)! The trend of the Education Index over the three-year period clearly indicates a definitive deterioration in the quality of human capital of the country.
All regions improved their HI 1 except for Regions IVB and VI. Likewise, all regions improved their QOLI except for Regions IVA, IX, XI and Caraga. However, all regions deteriorated in the EI except for CAR and ARMM (Tables 6, 7, and 8).
Injecting a rights-based approach to the CDI generated a CDI 2 lower than CDI 1 by 0.036 and 0.040 point in 2000 and 2003, respectively (Table 9). This could be an indication that our dutybearers are not doing enough, in fact, are not possibly being helpful in the development of our children.
With the addition of rights-based indicators such as immunization of infants and pre-natal care of pregnant women, HI 2 was lower than the HI 1 by 0.108 and 0.120 point in 2000 and 2003, respectively (Tables 6 and 10).

Not really good news, these statistics are, but even if we are in “a period of great wealth destruction” as George Soros and his theory of reflexivity would say, all is not lost! In the 2005-2006 National Achievement Test (NAT) for second year high school students, three national high schools from fifth class municipalities in Southern Leyte were tops: Rizal National High School, Marayag National High School and Pintuyan National High School¹⁴. In fact, in the 2006-2007 NAT, among all divisions, Southern Leyte was No. 1 for elementary level (Grade VI) and No. 3 for secondary (Second Year) level (Table 11). Knowing that the 2005-2006 exams were given just a week after the Ginsaugon landslide disaster and that Southern Leyte was only 26th richest among 79 provinces in 2006¹⁵, the performance of their kids should surely serve as a source of inspiration for everyone, especially our educators. Indeed, if one tries hard enough, could success be far behind? To save our children, no solomonic decision is required. Political will, genuine concern and love for our children are all it takes! Ask the superintendents, principals and teachers, and the marvelous kids and parents of these schools from Southern Leyte! Notwithstanding the threat of a $200 per barrel oil bomb therefore, let us continue to hope. But work we must!

And so, as we celebrate our 110th year of Independence, we declare Mabuhay ang Pilipinas, Mabuhay ang Pilipino! Mabuhay ang ating Kabataan! Shout it, believe it, live it!

Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the authors at ra.virola@nscb.gov.ph or jo.encarnacion@nscb.gov.ph

_______________
¹ Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and Chairman of the Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC). He holds a Ph. D. in Statistics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, U.S.A. and has taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines. He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association. This article is co-written by Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Chief of the Social Sectors B Division of the NSCB. The authors thank Bernadette B. Balamban, Mildred B. Addawe, Noel S. Nepomuceno, Debbie Ann P. Sarmiento, Cynthia S. Regalado, Simonette A. Nisperos and Candido J. Astrologo, Jr. for the assistance in the preparation of the article.

² Statistically Speaking, 13 November 2006, 8 January 2007, http://www.nscb.gov.ph.

³ The Philippines has just been added to the list of 40 countries participating in the project. The NSCB has agreed to be responsible for the Statistical Template of the project. Other participating countries from the East Asia and the Pacific Region are Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

⁴ Statistics on Children in Poverty: Towards Informed Decisions for Poverty Alleviation by Romulo A. Virola, Jessamyn O. Encarnacion and Bernadette B. Balamban.

⁵ Updates to 2006 have not been estimated due to the unavailability of the appropriate 2006 FIES Public Use Files.

⁶ CPC 6 covers 24 cities and provinces but there are no available child poverty estimates for four cities: Quezon City, Pasay City, Cebu City, and Davao City

⁷ Per Memorandum of Understanding between the NSCB and HDN signed on 19 May 1997. The provincial HDI is patterned after the HDI of the UNDP.

⁸ Statistically Speaking, 13 June 2006, http://www.nscb.gov.ph

⁹ The most recent Family Income and Expenditures Survey conducted by the NSO is for 2006.

¹⁰ Values set as maximum or minimum for the variables have been set at theoretical levels. For instance, maximum infant mortality rate is 1000 per thousand while minimum is 0 per thousand. In refining the CDI, a value much less than 1000 per thousand infant mortality rate may have to be used. This will affect the value of the health sub-index HI and the overall CDI.

¹¹ Virola Romulo A. & Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Measuring Progress of Philippine Society: Gross National Product or Gross National Happiness? , 10th National Convention on Statistics, EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, October 1-2, 2007. Also, Statistically Speaking, 08 October 2007, http://www.nscb.gov.ph

¹² Source: The State of Brazils’ Children 2006, The Child Development Index

¹³ High – 0.80 to 1.0; Medium – 0.50 to 0.79; Low – 0.0 to 0.49

¹⁴ Source: Impact Stories: Philippines, Asian Development Bank, 2008.

¹⁵ http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2006_05mar08/table_24.asp

Posted 10 June 2008.

Table 1. Poverty Incidence and Magnitude of Poor Children and All Population,
by Region: 2000 and 2003

	2000						2003
	Children			All population			Children			All population
	Poverty Incidence	Magnitude of Poor	Coefficient of Variation	Poverty Incidence	Magnitude of Poor	Coefficient of Variation	Poverty Incidence	Magnitude of Poor	Coefficient of Variation	Poverty Incidence	Magnitude of Poor	Magnitude of Poor
Philippines	42.5	14,093,102	1.7	33.0	25,472,782	1.5	38.8	13,469,849	1.2	30.0	23,836,104	1.2

NCR	13.8	511,714	9.3	7.8	860,934	8.1	10.9	459,227	8.9	6.9	742,549	8.9
Region I	43.6	760,135	8.0	35.3	1,452,222	5.5	39.5	691,595	5.2	30.2	1,262,799	5.2
Region II	34.1	423,822	9.1	30.4	821,294	7.8	32.0	365,774	5.1	24.5	659,666	5.1
Region III	26.7	907,557	6.9	21.4	1,695,227	5.7	24.5	894,129	5.9	17.5	1,535,784	5.9
Region IVA	24.8	959,162	7.2	19.1	1,697,033	6.7	25.8	1,111,805	4.7	18.4	1,899,827	4.7
Region IVB	56.5	619,268	7.8	45.3	1,032,123	6.6	55.9	651,772	4.1	48.1	1,163,867	4.1
Region V	66.4	1,480,551	5.0	52.6	2,540,660	4.0	58.7	1,393,292	2.9	48.5	2,332,719	2.9
Region VI	57.0	1,531,637	4.4	44.5	2,773,352	3.6	49.7	1,314,986	3.4	39.2	2,374,772	3.4
Region VII	44.0	1,082,718	7.0	36.2	2,016,910	5.5	36.1	908,504	4.9	28.3	1,652,316	4.9
Region VIII	56.1	951,679	7.7	45.1	1,649,582	5.8	52.2	967,101	3.7	43.0	1,619,731	3.7
Region IX	54.1	695,940	8.7	44.8	1,257,210	6.4	58.5	795,733	3.6	49.2	1,427,722	3.6
Region X	54.0	860,135	5.6	43.8	1,582,225	4.2	52.7	863,299	4.2	44.0	1,567,963	4.2
Region XI	40.5	659,075	9.4	33.3	1,231,277	8.1	42.7	737,496	4.9	34.7	1,346,269	4.9
Region XII	54.4	848,175	7.0	46.8	1,595,474	5.2	46.6	749,942	5.1	38.4	1,319,563	5.1
CAR	49.3	296,335	6.3	37.7	537,975	5.0	40.2	255,333	5.9	32.2	445,036	5.9
ARMM	68.6	913,911	5.9	60.0	1,652,890	3.7	60.9	716,061	4.2	52.8	1,373,620	4.2
Caraga	59.3	591,290	6.7	51.2	1,076,395	4.6	61.7	593,801	3.4	54.0	1,111,901	3.4

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB)

Source: NSCB

Table 2. Poverty Incidence for Children and All Population,
by Province: 2000

Province	Children		All population (Official)
Province	Poverty Incidence	Rank	Poverty Incidence	Rank
Maguindanao	81.7	1	59.3	2
Agusan del Sur	78.2	2	52.3	9
Sulu	78.2	3	58.9	3
Masbate	77.6	4	61.3	1
Saranggani	76.7	5	48.4	14
Sultan Kudarat	72.2	6	48.8	13
Western Samar	71.1	7	45.5	20
Mt. Province	69.1	8	48.4	15
Lanao del Sur	68.9	9	54.7	5
Zamboanga Norte	68.6	10	47.0	17
Oriental Mindoro	66.9	11	39.8	32
North Cotabato	66.8	12	41.6	24
Ifugao	66.5	13	55.7	4
Surigao Del Norte	65.7	14	42.6	23
Palawan	64.8	15	24.7	62
Negros Oriental	64.6	16	29.7	53
Occidental Mindoro	63.9	17	38.1	36
Northern Samar	63.5	18	39.8	31
Sorsogon	63.3	19	41.4	26
Surigao Del Sur	63.1	20	38.4	35
Romblon	62.4	21	52.2	10
Albay	62.4	22	40.3	30
Davao Oriental	61.6	23	33.7	42
Tawi-tawi	61.4	24	52.4	8
Antique	61.4	25	35.1	38
Kalinga	60.7	26	39.3	34
Camiguin	60.3	27	54.2	6
Lanao del Norte	59.0	28	49.3	12
Bohol	58.4	29	50.2	11
Basilan	58.0	30	31.5	47
Aklan	57.5	31	36.3	37
Camarines Sur	57.0	32	40.8	29
Apayao	56.8	33	26.5	59
Marinduque	56.1	34	42.7	22
Bukidnon	55.9	35	33.4	43
Negros Occidental	55.6	36	41.6	25
Catanduanes	55.3	37	43.9	21
Biliran	55.1	38	33.3	44
Guimaras	55.0	39	22.6	64
Capiz	54.7	40	40.8	28
Agusan del Norte	52.5	41	40.9	27
Camarines Norte	52.2	42	52.7	7
Abra	52.1	43	47.6	16
Iloilo	51.9	44	29.7	52
Eastern Samar	51.9	45	45.9	19
Zamboanga Sur	51.7	46	34.9	40
Quezon	49.6	47	32.9	46
Misamis Occidental	49.3	48	46.8	18
Leyte	48.8	49	34.9	39
Aurora	48.3	50	26.9	58
Southern Leyte	43.8	51	26.3	60
Nueva Ecija	43.8	52	27.6	57
Ilocos Sur	42.5	53	30.4	50
La Union	42.4	54	33.2	45
Isabela	41.8	55	30.2	51
Pangasinan	40.8	56	30.8	49
Cagayan	40.0	57	21.5	65
Misamis Oriental	39.9	58	29.3	54
Davao del Norte	39.2	59	39.5	33
Cebu	39.0	60	26.2	61
South Cotabato	38.5	61	34.7	41
Batangas	38.2	62	20.7	66
Quirino	38.1	63	31.4	48
Nueva Vizcaya	37.0	64	16.5	69
Siquijor	35.2	65	28.6	55
Ilocos Norte	33.4	66	18.2	68
Compostela Valley	32.4	67
Davao del Sur	29.9	68	18.3	67
Batanes	29.2	69	10.4	72
Benguet	28.7	70	13.9	71
Zambales	24.2	71	23.7	63
Tarlac	24.1	72	27.6	56
Pampanga	19.0	73	14.4	70
Bulacan	11.9	74	5.4	79
Bataan	11.5	75	9.9	74
Laguna	8.6	76	8.1	76
Cavite	8.3	77	10.2	73
1st District	8.2	78	5.8	77
Rizal	7.8	79	5.6	78
3rd District	4.6	80	9.4	75
4th District	2.8	81	4.9	80
2nd District	2.1	82	4.1	81

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

Notes:
1) Districts of NCR cover the following:

1st District - Manila
2nd District - Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Quezon City, and San Juan
3rd District - Valenzuela, Caloocan City, Malabon, and Navotas
4th District - Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasay City, Pateros, and Taguig

2) Estimates are based on the 2000 official poverty thresholds
3) Colors refer to the following:

	Priority provinces of CPC 6
	10 Poorest provinces among children and among all population
	Provinces ranked 11-20 based on poverty incidence among children and all population

Table 3. Poverty Incidence Among Children by Family Size
by Region, 2000

Region	Family Size
Region	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10 or more

PHILIPPINES	0.8	5.4	9.0	16.9	26.9	38.3	49.7	59.0	64.8	65.3

NCR	-	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.7	2.2	5.1	9.0	13.3	14.5
Region I	-	3.9	5.6	14.3	26.4	38.6	49.4	56.9	63.1	65.0
Region II	-	2.3	4.9	13.7	25.0	37.7	49.5	58.6	64.7	66.0
Region III	-	1.0	2.2	5.9	12.0	20.7	30.2	38.5	45.9	48.1
Region IV	0.7	5.1	7.0	12.2	19.7	29.7	40.1	48.8	56.9	58.6
Region V	-	8.0	14.7	30.2	45.6	59.0	69.6	77.2	82.4	83.1
Region VI	0.7	10.5	15.7	27.9	41.6	54.3	64.3	71.2	76.1	70.0
Region VII	-	4.4	10.1	20.4	32.9	45.4	56.7	64.8	70.8	71.7
Region VIII	-	6.1	13.8	26.8	40.3	52.9	63.9	71.7	75.7	75.5
Region IX	-	8.1	16.1	29.5	43.7	56.1	66.4	73.6	77.3	75.5
Region X	0.4	6.6	10.8	20.6	33.7	46.7	58.4	66.4	72.7	74.0
Region XI	4.7	7.4	12.9	20.6	29.7	38.8	48.2	56.0	60.9	63.1
Region XII	2.0	16.0	24.3	39.1	52.5	64.1	72.5	76.5	81.0	77.0
CAR	0.6	6.9	9.9	18.6	30.1	42.2	53.4	63.5	66.1	69.0
ARMM	-	8.4	22.9	44.4	62.0	73.9	80.4	82.1	85.5	81.2
Caraga	1.3	11.3	18.8	34.2	50.1	63.2	73.2	79.7	83.6	84.9

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

Source: NSCB

Table 4. Poverty Incidence Among Children by Sex
by Region, 2000

Region/Province	Poverty incidence		Percentage Point Diiference (A-B)
Region/Province	Boy (A)	Girl (B)	Percentage Point Diiference (A-B)
Philippines	41.5	40.6	0.9

NCR	3.9	3.7	0.2
Region I	40.7	40.1	0.6
Region II	40.8	39.7	1.0
Region III	22.9	22.2	0.6
Region IV	32.3	31.5	0.8
Region V	62.3	61.2	1.1
Region VI	55.6	54.4	1.2
Region VII	48.6	47.4	1.2
Region VIII	57.1	53.6	3.5
Region IX	57.6	56.2	1.5
Region X	49.3	47.9	1.3
Region XI	40.8	39.5	1.2
Region XII	63.6	62.2	1.3
CAR	47.6	46.5	1.0
ARMM	74.7	73.9	0.8
Caraga	65.9	64.6	1.3

Source: NSCB

Source: NSCB

Table 5. Child Development Index 1 (CDI 1),
by Region: 2000 and 2003

Region	Health Index (HI)				Education Index (EI)				Quantity of Life Index (QOLI)				Child Development Index 1 (CDI 1)
	Index		Rank		Index		Rank		Index		Rank		Index		Rank
	2000	2003	2000	2003	2000	2003	2000	2003	2000	2003	2000	2003	2000	2003	2000	2003
Philippines	0.972	0.979			0.790	0.739			0.575	0.612			0.779	0.777

NCR	0.981	0.984	1.5	3.0	0.921	0.860	1	1	0.862	0.891	1	1	0.921	0.912	1	1
Region I	0.974	0.980	5.0	8.0	0.857	0.784	2	4	0.564	0.605	6	6	0.798	0.790	5	5
Region II	0.974	0.982	7.0	5.0	0.769	0.726	9	7	0.659	0.680	4	4	0.800	0.796	4	4
Region III	0.980	0.985	3.0	1.5	0.806	0.807	5	3	0.733	0.755	3	2	0.840	0.849	3	3
Region IVA	0.973	0.985	9.5	1.5	0.832	0.817	4	2	0.752	0.742	2	3	0.852	0.848	2	2
Region IVB	0.973	0.966	9.5	16.0	0.792	0.735	7	6	0.435	0.441	13	13	0.733	0.714	10	12
Region V	0.974	0.979	7.0	9.0	0.799	0.721	6	8	0.336	0.413	16	15	0.703	0.704	15	14
Region VI	0.979	0.975	4.0	14.0	0.840	0.703	3	10	0.430	0.503	14	10	0.750	0.727	8	10
Region VII	0.981	0.981	1.5	7.0	0.773	0.714	8	9	0.560	0.639	7	5	0.771	0.778	6	6
Region VIII	0.957	0.971	16.0	15.0	0.737	0.664	10	15	0.439	0.478	12	11	0.711	0.704	12	13
Region IX	0.962	0.978	13.5	10.0	0.713	0.670	14	14	0.459	0.415	10	14	0.711	0.688	13	15
Region X	0.967	0.976	12.0	12.5	0.721	0.702	13	11	0.460	0.473	9	12	0.716	0.717	11	11
Region XI	0.969	0.976	11.0	11.0	0.729	0.683	11