NSCB - Statistically Speaking... Our CHRISTMAS List FOR OUR CHILDREN! by Dr. Romulo A. Virola

Our CHRISTMAS List FOR OUR CHILDREN!
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola ¹
Secretary General, NSCB

Christmas is just around the corner and despite the sad news of recent weeks, Pinoys have a lot to thank for…we all watched the magnificent victory of Pacquiao over Cotto, didn’t we? And we rejoiced over the country’s 1st gold medal in the on-going 25th SEA Games won by our talented and beautiful taekwondo trio of Carla Lagman, Rani Ann Ortega and Francesca Alarilla! Last Saturday, we of course heard that martial law in Maguindanao had been lifted! And during this season of thanksgiving and merriment in celebration of the birthday of Jesus Christ, let us not forget that this is also a time for reflection on what have we done, what we have achieved during the past year. As Santa Claus will ask the kids on Christmas Day, “Have you been good or bad? Have you been naughty or nice?”

To assess the country’s performance – whether it has been good or bad, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Product (GNP) have been conventionally used. But in line with efforts to improve the monitoring of development of nations, other measures have surfaced such as the human development index (HDI), the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and Gross National Happiness², among others. In fact, less than two months ago, the 3rd OECD World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy was held in Busan, Korea ³. The OECD World Forum is the brilliant brainchild of the former OECD Chief Statistician, Enrico Giovannini who now heads the statistical system of Italy, and is geared towards better measures of progress of society.

This article focuses on the HDI and a derivative, the Child Development Index. As most readers know, the HDI was conceptualized by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1990 to provide a measure that promotes a more balanced concept of human development rather than focusing mainly if not solely on economic growth as what the System of National Accounts (SNA) does. The HDI measures society’s progress in creating an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives.

However, with the decentralization of planning and the emergence of the need for more focused program and policy interventions, there has been an increasing demand for lower level disaggregation of information that includes the generation of sectoral statistics. In the Philippines, Republic Act (RA) 8425 or the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act declares that the state should adopt an area-based sectoral ⁴ and focused intervention to poverty alleviation. In this regard, the latest poverty statistics of the NSCB for the basic sectors show that in 2006, children and women accounted for the largest number of the poor population!⁵ Quite clearly, children and women need urgent attention! It is thus unfortunate that while other countries, particularly in Africa, have begun to recognize the important role of statistics in the development agenda, the Senate decided to cut the NSCB 2010 budget, potentially curtailing the initiatives of the NSCB to help in poverty alleviation by producing small area estimates of poverty statistics, and to promote evidence-based decision making in government and the private sector that will enhance the competitiveness of the Philippines among knowledge-based economies of the Third Millennium. What a pity!

Cognizant of the importance of gender equality and child development issues, the NSCB developed a Gender Development Index (GDI) and a Child Development Index (CDI)⁶. And recognizing that Christmas is para sa mga bata (at sana nagbibigay tayo ng kaligayahan sa mga batang nagka-caroling sa ating mga pintuan, hane?), this article will dwell again on the CDI.

The Philippine CDI (or CDI1) developed by the NSCB, is a measure closely aligned with the HDI. It 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). To inject a rights-based approach to the CDI, we formulated a second CDI (CDI2), that includes some additional variables, albeit only for the health component (HI 2) due to data and time constraint. The CDI2 aims to measure the accountability of dutybearers and thus includes variables like the percentage of immunized children 9-11 months and the percentage of pregnant women with 3 or more pre-natal visits. The first set of estimates of CDI, covering the years 2000 and 2003, was released by the NSCB in June 2008. The 2006 CDI updates were released in June 2009, through a Users’ Forum, with funding support from the UNICEF.

Certainly, our methodology needs improvement... it is by no means perfect! But given the very limited resources we at the NSCB have, like limited time and manpower resources coupled with data constraints, this is the best that we can come up with at the moment. Nonetheless, efforts done by the NSCB indicate that despite the data limitations, it is possible to produce statistics that can help measure the development of children. Also, we hope that our compilation of the CDI will encourage policy debate on the development of our children. Indeed, we are fortunate and we are grateful that we have partners from the UNICEF community who have been very active in pursuing this agenda. Since last year, Mr. Wilfredo G. Nuqui, UNICEF Consultant, has been very vocal in his statistical appreciation of the CDI and has provided a lot of encouragement to the NSCB efforts. More recently, Ms. Vanessa Tobin, Country Representative of UNICEF, and Mr. Augusto Rodriguez, OIC-Social Policy and Local Development Section of UNICEF, have resolutely joined Mr. Nuqui in supporting the NSCB in generating lower-level CDI as well as in the inclusion of the CDI in the State of the Filipino Children Report (SOFCR) prepared by the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC).

Now, what does the latest CDI tell us? Have we, the parents, the dutybearers, been naughty or nice?

BETWEEN 2003 AND 2006, OUR CHILDREN
EXPERIENCED A DECLINE IN DEVELOPMENT EVEN THOUGH
THE GENERAL POPULATION EXPERIENCED AN IMPROVEMENT!

For the general population, the loss of 0.010 index point in the HDI experienced between 2000 (0.597) and 2003 (0.587) was offset by an increase of 0.027 index point in 2006, with an HDI of 0.614 (Table 1 and Figure 1).

On the other hand, it is worrisome that for our children, who account for more than 40% of the total population, their development as measured through the CDI1 has continuously deteriorated from 2000 to 2006, with a greater decline between 2003 and 2006!
In fact, in 2000, 2003, and 2006, poverty incidence among children is higher than poverty incidence among the general population (Table 2)!
At the regional level, all regions showed a drop in CDI1 levels. Between 2003 and 2006, the largest drop was observed in NCR, followed by CAR, Regions VII, IV-A, III, and I (Table 3).
The number of regions that rated high in CDI1 continually decreased between 2000 and 2006. Specifically, from five regions, namely NCR, Regions I, II, III, and IV-A that rated high in 2000, it was down to three (Regions I and II were dropped) in 2003, and only one in 2006 (only NCR remained in the list)! (Table 4)
To say therefore that greater focus should be given to children is a severe understatement! Our children should be our top priority in our development agenda!
We are, of course, hopeful that our friends from the government, particularly the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC), and concerned sectors of the civil society are taking note!

ONE GOOD NEWS IS THAT NO REGION RATED “LOW” IN THE CDI1 IN 2000, 2003, and 2006. (Table 4)

Knowing how disadvantaged our children have become, where then have we gone wrong? For their future, as well as ours, where should we focus on?
Sa kanilang kalusugan? Kaalaman? Kayamanan?

THE CDI SHOWS THE SYSTEMATIC DETERIORATION
IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OUR CHILDREN IN EDUCATION!

The Statistically Speaking article in January 2007⁷ already cited the systematic deterioration in the performance of our children in education.

The bad news is --- this was again demonstrated by the large decrease in Child Education Index (CEI) by 0.132 index point from 2003 to 2006 (Table 5). In fact, elementary net enrolment for all regions decreased between 2003 and 2006! The same was also observed for secondary net enrolment, except for Caraga (Table 6)!
Further, the number of regions with high levels of development in education decreased over the 6-year period, and by 2006, all regions are rated “medium.” (Table 6 )
Certainly, our goal of “Achieving Universal Primary Education” in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) is highly at risk⁸! (As our students would always pray during examinations, “Sana naman po pumasa tayo! Sa 2015!”)
Moreover, the share of the Department of Education (DepEd) budget to total government budget decreased from 20.0% in 2007 to 13.0% in 2008 and 13.5% in 2009!!! Obviously, great challenges await the next administration. Will it have the political will to invest on the country’s education system…on our schoolchildren as well as our grossly underpaid, overworked teachers? And will the resources allocated for education be spent wisely by the pillars of our educational system?

THE QUANTITY OF LIFE INDEX (QOLI) ALSO SAW A DECREASE
OF 0.020 INDEX POINT BETWEEN 2003 AND 2006
AS POVERTY INCIDENCE AMONG CHILDREN ⁹ INCREASED
DURING THIS PERIOD! (Table 7)

Further, regions with low levels of development in the Quantity of Life Index slightly increased over the 6-year period (Table 7 ).

And with the devastation caused by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng, which will impact on the income to be captured in the second round of the Family Income and Expenditures Survey (FIES) by the National Statistics Office (NSO), unless appropriate interventions are made before January, the 2009 poverty statistics might be bad news for all of us!

Also, as pointed out in our Statistically Speaking article in June 2008 ¹⁰, we do not yet have a measure of the social cost when OFW parents leave their children to work abroad. Will the monetary income offset this social cost? Does increased income mean greater happiness for the children who grow up missing the guidance of their parents? Surely, these variables should be incorporated when we measure the development of our children. Unfortunately, at the moment, we do not have data to do this.

CONSISTENT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE HEALTH INDEX (HI)
OVER THE SIX YEAR-PERIOD!

The good news is that – the Health Index (HI) consistently increased from 0.982 in 2000 to 0.987 in 2003 – and slightly up by 0.001 index point in 2006 with 0.988. This, however, was not enough to offset the deterioration in education and poverty.

Generally, regions showed increases in the health index over the six-year period, except CAR. ¹¹ CAR consistently decreased between 2000 and 2006. (Table 8)
It is also worth noting that the share of DOH’s budget has been increasing for the past three years – from 1.8% share in 2007 to 1.9% share in 2008, and now, a 2.5% share in this year’s total government budget.

And with the budget of the Department of Health (DOH) increasing from PhP 11.6 billion in 2007 to PhP 27.9 billion in 2009 – we are hopeful that the good news will persist, and that this will translate into healthy lives for most if not all of us! (Table 9)

To account for the responsibilities of duty bearers in the development of children, a rights-based CDI (CDI2)¹² was generated by the NSCB. As might have been expected, the CDI2 registered lower levels than CDI1 in 2000, 2003, and 2006 (Table 10)! This strongly suggests that more can be done… in fact, needed to be done by dutybearers to improve the welfare and development of our children! As we now near the end of 2009 and look forward to a better 2010 – what can dutybearers do to help our children?

MAKE A “CHRISTMAS LIST” – A GIFT, A PROMISE THAT WE WILL GIVE, KEEP TO OUR CHILDREN!

Greater expenditures on health and education that should translate to positive outcomes!
- But beyond the call for greater investments on health and education, the challenge greatly lies on how these will be translated by the dutybearers to concrete, clear improvements! As Spiderman says, “With great powers comes great responsibilities!”
Better measure of child development
- To incorporate in the CDI the measurement of the social cost when OFW parents leave their children behind! The CDI should also capture the sources and levels of happiness of children.
- We are quite confident that our friends from the UNICEF, whose statistical appreciation has always been high, will again recognize this window of opportunity for collaboration between UNICEF and NSCB.
Advocacy on a rights-based approach to child development
- As children will only be able to have full access to and exercise their rights with the help of the dutybearers, we in the government, particularly the CWC and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), we, the parents and the international community (UNICEF) must do our best to save our children!
Statistics! Statistics on children! Statistics for our children!
- Obviously, the CDI has opened doors of opportunities in the formulation of policies and programs for the development of our children.
- Despite limited resources, the NSCB and our partners have made giant steps in the compilation of statistics on children. In fact, tomorrow, in collaboration with UNICEF, we will present the Statistical Handbook on Children in a Users’ Forum and demonstrate its online (interactive) database version for greater access of our users and stakeholders.
- With the increasing demand for statistical information of knowledge-based economies of the Third Millennium, the leaps we have taken challenge us to do even better in the future. Confident of the support of our stakeholders and all our partners, we are sure we will be able to respond faster to the information needs of our society… for the development of our children!

And with great hopes in our hearts and a firm determination in our minds, we look forward to a bright 2010 and wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

On behalf of the NSCB family, we thank you for your support to statistics in 2009!

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

________________

¹Secretary 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 was co-written by Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, OIC-Director, NSCB. The authors thank Bernadette B. Balamban, Noel S. Nepomuceno, Candido J. Astrologo, Jr., Ma. Libertie V. Masculino, Albert Garcia, Andrea Baylon, and Jeffrey Enrado 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.

² The NSCB has conceptualized a Philippine Happiness Index (PHI). See Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Measuring Progress of Philippine Society: Gross National Product or Gross National Happiness?. 10th National Convention on Statistics. 1-2 October 2007.
( http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/10thNCS/papers/invited%20papers/ips-28/ips28-03.pdf )

³ Four Filipinos participated in the Forum: Dr. Margarita F. Guerrero of UN ESCAP, Dr. Mahar Mangahas of the Social Weather Station, Roger Ricafort of Oxfam Hongkong, and Dr. Romulo A. Virola of NSCB. Mr. Ricafort was a panelist in the Session on New Policies, New Behaviours, New Institutions, while Dr. Virola presented a paper entitled ”Measuring Democratic Governance: An Emerging Challenge to Official Statisticians."

⁴ Section 3 of RA 8425 defines the term basic sectors as the “disadvantaged sectors of Philippine society, namely: farmer-peasant, artisanal fisherfolk, workers in the formal sector and migrant workers, workers in the informal sector, indigenous peoples and cultural communities, women, differently-abled persons, senior citizens, victims of calamities and disasters, youth and students, children and urban poor.” Section 6, on the other hand, defines the composition of NAPC and includes nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and cooperatives to the initial list of basic sectors, bringing the number of basic sectors to a total of 14.

⁵ http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/default.asp

⁶ GDI reference: National Statistical Coordination Board. Development of a Methodology and Estimation of the Gender Development Index at the Local Level. October 2008.
CDI reference: Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Save Our Children! Statistically Speaking. National Statistical Coordination Board. 10 June 2008.
( http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/statsspeak/2008/061008_rav_children.asp )

⁷ Virola, Romulo A. Statistics on Philippine Education: Good News and Bad News! Statistically Speaking. National Statistical Coordination Board. 8 January 2007
( http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2007/010807_rav_educ.asp )

⁸ Latest NSCB MDGWatch shows that ALL indicators of Goal 2 have low probabilities of achieving the target. (Source: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/mdg/mdg_watch.asp )

⁹ A similar trend was observed for the general population with poverty incidence among the population increasing from 30.0 percent in 2003 to 32.9 percent in 2006.

¹⁰ Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Save Our Children! Statistically Speaking. National Statistical Coordination Board. 10 June 2008.
( http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/statsspeak/2008/061008_rav_children.asp )

¹¹ The authors would like to note, however, that the health index is relatively higher compared to the other two components of the CDI due to the indicator being used (i.e., infant and child mortality – which exhibit relatively low occurrences in 1,000 live births)). The choice of indicators is also dependent on data availability, as well as time and manpower resource constraints.

¹² Due to data availability, time and manpower constraints, the rights-based CDI: 1) does not include NCR, Regions IV-A, X, and XII as no submissions were received from the concerned regional offices on the set deadline; and 2) was only applied to the Child Health Index.

Table 1. Human Development Index and Child Development Index:
2000, 2003, and 2006

Development Index	Index			Increase/Decrease
Development Index	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06
CDI	0.782	0.779	0.729	(0.003)	(0.050)
HDI	0.597	0.587	0.614	(0.010)	0.027

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board.

Figure 1. Human Development Index and Child Development Index:
2000, 2003, and 2006

chart

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board.

Table 2.Poverty Incidence Among Children and General Population:
2000, 2003, and 2006

Poverty Incidence	In Percent			Increase/Decrease
Poverty Incidence	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06
Poverty incidence
Children (A)	42.5	38.8	40.8	(3.7)	2.0
General population (B)	33.0	30.0	32.9	(3.0)	2.9

Difference (A - B)	9.5	8.8	7.9

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board.

Table 3. Child Development Index, byRegion : 2000, 2003, and 2006

Region	Child Development Index 1 (CDI 1)						Differences in Index
	Index			Rank			Differences in Index
	2000	2003	2006	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06

Philippines	0.782	0.779	0.729				(0.003)	(0.050)

NCR	0.921	0.912	0.826	1	1	1	(0.009)	(0.086)
Region III	0.842	0.851	0.790	3	2	1	0.009	(0.061)
Region IVA	0.855	0.850	0.787	2	3	2	(0.006)	(0.062)
Region II	0.805	0.799	0.760	4	1	3	(0.005)	(0.039)
Region I	0.802	0.792	0.740	5	2	4	(0.010)	(0.052)
Region VII	0.773	0.781	0.711	1	3	5	0.008	(0.070)
CAR	0.739	0.776	0.706	4	4	6	0.036	(0.070)
Region XI	0.770	0.749	0.704	2	5	7	(0.020)	(0.046)
Region XII	0.710	0.733	0.693	9	6	8	0.023	(0.040)
Region VI	0.751	0.731	0.692	3	7	9	(0.020)	(0.039)
Region X	0.721	0.721	0.686	6	8	10	0.000	(0.035)
Region V	0.705	0.707	0.682	10	11	11	0.001	(0.025)
Region IX	0.717	0.691	0.680	8	12	12	(0.026)	(0.011)
Region IVB	0.736	0.719	0.672	5	9	13	(0.017)	(0.047)
Region VIII	0.718	0.708	0.665	7	10	14	(0.011)	(0.043)
Caraga	0.694	0.670	0.664	11	13	15	(0.024)	(0.006)
ARMM	0.616	0.647	0.629	12	14	16	0.031	(0.018)

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board.

Table 4.Regional Distribution by Level of Child Development: 2000, 2003, and 2006

Year	Level of Development 1/						Total Number of Regions
	Low (< 0.5)		Medium (0.5 to < 0.8)		High (0.8 to 1.0)
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
2006	0	0	16	94.1	1	5.9	17
2003	0	0	14	82.4	3	17.6	17
2000	0	0	12	70.6	5	29.4	17

Note: 1/ - Using HDI classification on the level of development

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board.

Table 5. Child Development Index, by Component: 2000, 2003, and 2006

Development Index	Index			Difference
Development Index	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06
CDI	0.782	0.779	0.729	(0.003)	(0.050)
Health index	0.982	0.987	0.988	0.005	0.001
Education Index	0.790	0.739	0.607	(0.051)	(0.132)
Quantity of Life Index	0.575	0.612	0.592	0.037	(0.020)

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board.

Table 6.Education Index among Children, by Region: 2000, 2003, and 2006

	Net Enrolment Index										Education Index (EI)
	Elementary					Secondary					Education Index (EI)
	Index			Increase/Decrease		Index			Increase/Decrease		Index			Increase/Decrease
	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06

Philippines	0.921	0.887	0.761	(0.033)	(0.127)	0.659	0.590	0.454	(0.069)	(0.136)	0.790	0.739	0.607	(0.051)	(0.131)

NCR	1.000	0.968	0.732	(0.032)	(0.236)	0.842	0.753	0.557	(0.089)	(0.196)	0.921	0.860	0.644	(0.061)	(0.216)
Region I	0.924	0.885	0.765	(0.039)	(0.121)	0.790	0.683	0.528	(0.106)	(0.155)	0.857	0.784	0.646	(0.072)	(0.138)
Region II	0.879	0.857	0.740	(0.023)	(0.117)	0.658	0.595	0.462	(0.062)	(0.133)	0.769	0.726	0.601	(0.043)	(0.125)
Region III	0.919	0.936	0.788	0.017	(0.148)	0.692	0.677	0.499	(0.015)	(0.178)	0.806	0.807	0.643	0.001	(0.163)
Region IVA	0.934	0.953	0.791	0.019	(0.162)	0.729	0.682	0.517	(0.047)	(0.164)	0.832	0.817	0.654	(0.014)	(0.163)
Region IVB	0.927	0.894	0.808	(0.033)	(0.087)	0.656	0.576	0.474	(0.081)	(0.102)	0.792	0.735	0.641	(0.057)	(0.094)
Region V	0.915	0.893	0.812	(0.022)	(0.081)	0.684	0.549	0.459	(0.135)	(0.090)	0.799	0.721	0.635	(0.078)	(0.086)
Region VI	0.922	0.832	0.717	(0.089)	(0.116)	0.758	0.573	0.452	(0.185)	(0.121)	0.840	0.703	0.584	(0.137)	(0.118)
Region VII	0.918	0.856	0.734	(0.062)	(0.121)	0.628	0.573	0.397	(0.055)	(0.176)	0.773	0.714	0.566	(0.059)	(0.148)
Region VIII	0.914	0.837	0.764	(0.077)	(0.074)	0.560	0.490	0.426	(0.070)	(0.064)	0.737	0.664	0.595	(0.073)	(0.069)
Region IX	0.869	0.848	0.757	(0.020)	(0.091)	0.558	0.492	0.409	(0.066)	(0.083)	0.713	0.670	0.583	(0.043)	(0.087)
Region X	0.901	0.869	0.745	(0.032)	(0.124)	0.540	0.534	0.373	(0.006)	(0.161)	0.721	0.702	0.559	(0.019)	(0.143)
Region XI	0.883	0.844	0.707	(0.039)	(0.137)	0.575	0.523	0.383	(0.053)	(0.139)	0.729	0.683	0.545	(0.046)	(0.138)
Region XII	0.816	0.812	0.722	(0.004)	(0.090)	0.567	0.534	0.396	(0.033)	(0.137)	0.691	0.673	0.559	(0.019)	(0.114)
CAR	0.885	0.892	0.727	0.007	(0.165)	0.557	0.596	0.395	0.040	(0.202)	0.721	0.744	0.561	0.024	(0.183)
ARMM	0.842	0.901	0.848	0.060	(0.053)	0.276	0.237	0.287	(0.039)	0.050	0.559	0.569	0.567	0.010	(0.002)
Caraga	0.885	0.780	0.758	(0.105)	(0.023)	0.505	0.498	0.406	(0.008)	(0.091)	0.695	0.639	0.582	(0.056)	(0.057)

Notes:
1. Enrolment data for School Years 1999-2000 and 2003-2004 are used.
2. Based on the school age population adopted by DepEd for the school years of interest.

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board using data from the Basic Education Information System, Department of Education.

Table 7. Quantity of Life Index, by Region: 2000, 2003, and 2006

Region	Quantity of Life Index (QOLI)						Differences in Index
	Index			Rank			Differences in Index
	2000	2003	2006	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06

Philippines	0.575	0.612	0.592				0.037	(0.021)

NCR	0.862	0.891	0.848				0.029	(0.043)

Region III	0.733	0.755	0.734	2	1	1	0.022	(0.021)
Region IVA	0.752	0.742	0.718	1	2	2	(0.010)	(0.024)
Region II	0.659	0.680	0.688	3	3	3	0.021	0.008
Region I	0.564	0.605	0.587	5	5	4	0.041	(0.018)
Region VII	0.560	0.639	0.578	6	4	5	0.079	(0.061)
Region XI	0.595	0.573	0.574	4	7	6	(0.021)	0.001
CAR	0.507	0.598	0.571	7	6	7	0.090	(0.026)
Region XII	0.456	0.534	0.528	10	8	8	0.078	(0.007)
Region X	0.460	0.473	0.509	8	11	9	0.013	0.036
Region VI	0.430	0.503	0.505	13	9	10	0.073	0.002
Region IX	0.459	0.415	0.471	9	13	11	(0.043)	0.056
Region V	0.336	0.413	0.424	15	14	12	0.077	0.011
Caraga	0.407	0.383	0.421	14	16	13	(0.024)	0.038
Region VIII	0.439	0.478	0.418	11	10	14	0.039	(0.060)
Region IVB	0.435	0.441	0.393	12	12	15	0.007	(0.048)
ARMM	0.314	0.391	0.337	16	15	16	0.076	(0.053)

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board using data from the following:
1. 1998 and 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey, National Statistics Office
2. Basic Education Information System, Department of Education

Table 8. Health Index (with rights-based indicators) among Children, by Region:
2000, 2003, and 2006

Region	Health Index 1 (HDI 1)						Differences in Index		Health Index 1 (HDI 1)						Differences in Index
	Index			Rank			Differences in Index		Index			Rank			Differences in Index
	2000	2003	2006	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06	2000	2003	2006	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06

Philippines	0.982	0.987	0.988				0.005	0.000	0.869	0.863	0.855				(0.006)	(0.009)

Region III	0.988	0.992	0.992	2	1	1.5	0.004	0.000	0.896	0.921	0.934	2	1	1	0.025	0.013
ARMM	0.974	0.981	0.981	13	11.5	12.5	0.007	0.000	0.884	0.840	0.881	4	8	2	(0.044)	0.041
Region I	0.986	0.986	0.987	4	8.5	8.5	0.000	0.000	0.875	0.896	0.875	5	2	3	0.021	(0.021)
Region II	0.986	0.991	0.992	4	2.5	1.5	0.005	0.001	0.893	0.863	0.871	3	5	4	(0.030)	0.007
Region IX	0.978	0.987	0.986	12	6.5	7	0.008	(0.001)	0.862	0.846	0.863	7	6	5	(0.016)	0.016
Region VII	0.986	0.989	0.989	4	4	4.5	0.003	0.000	0.852	0.835	0.861	10	10	6	(0.017)	0.026
Region IVB	0.982	0.980	0.981	8	13	12.5	(0.002)	0.000	0.897	0.885	0.843	1	3	7	(0.013)	(0.042)
Region V	0.981	0.986	0.987	9	8.5	8.5	0.005	0.000	0.862	0.875	0.838	6	4	8	0.012	(0.036)
Region VIII	0.979	0.981	0.982	11	11.5	11	0.002	0.001	0.858	0.838	0.828	8	9	9	(0.020)	(0.009)
Caraga	0.980	0.988	0.989	10	5	4.5	0.009	0.001	0.845	0.844	0.816	12	7	10	(0.001)	(0.028)
Region VI	0.984	0.987	0.988	7	6.5	6	0.003	0.001	0.823	0.806	0.809	13	11	11	(0.017)	0.003
CAR	0.990	0.986	0.985	1	10	10	(0.004)	(0.000)	0.851	0.796	0.794	11	12	12	(0.056)	(0.002)
Region XI	0.985	0.991	0.991	6	2.5	3	0.006	0.000	0.856	0.770	0.791	9	13	13	(0.086)	0.021

NCR	0.981	0.986	0.987				0.005	0.000
Region IVA	0.982	0.989	0.990				0.007	0.000
Region X	0.982	0.989	0.990				0.007	0.000
Region XII	0.982	0.990	0.991				0.009	0.001

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board.

Table 9. Appropriations for the Departments of Health and Education: 2007-2009

Development Index	Appropriations			Increase/Decrease
Development Index	2007	2008	2009	07-08	08-09
Department of Health (A)	11,562,704,000	19,769,690,000	27,876,246,000	71.0	41.0
Department of Education (B)	126,862,859,000	138,243,515,000	158,210,142,000	9.0	14.4
TOTAL ( C )	635,041,878,000	1,066,179,857,000	1,170,318,753,000	67.9	9.8

Percent Share to Total
A/C	1.8	1.9	2.4	0.0	0.5
B/C	20.0	13.0	13.5	(7.0)	0.6

Source: General Appropriations Act, Department of Budget and Management.

Table 10. "Original CDI" 1/ vs. Rights-based CDI 2/:
2000, 2003, and 2006

Index	Index			Difference
Index	2000	2003	2006	00-03	03-06
CDI 1	0.782	0.779	0.729	(0.003)	(0.050)
CDI 2 3/	0.745	0.738	0.685	(0.007)	(0.053)
Difference between CDI 1 and CDI 2	0.037	0.041	0.044

Notes:
1/ - "Original" CDI (CDI 1), which computes the three components (i.e., health, education, and income/quantity of life) based on conventional HDI framework;

2/ - Rights-based CDI (CDI 2), which incorporates additional rights-based indicators for Health Index (HI 2);

3/ - Rights-based CDI does not include NCR, Regions IV-A, X, and XII as no submissions were received from the concerned regional offices on the set deadline.

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board.

Posted: 14 December 2009.