Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

Performance Audit Report
PAO-2017-01
PANTAWID PAMILYANG
PILIPINO PROGRAM
DSWD Should Maintain the

Suspension of 4Ps
Expansion Until It Upgrades
Its Information Technology
Systems and Identifies
Ineligible Beneficiaries
October 2017
Audit
PANTAWID PAMILYANG PILIPINO PROGRAM (4Ps)
Highlights
DSWD SHOULD MAINTAIN THE SUSPENSION OF 4PS EXPANSION
UNTIL IT UPGRADES ITS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SYSTEMS
AND IDENTIFIES INELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES
What COA Found

Why COA Did This Study DSWD does not have the absorptive capacity to cover all identified poor
households within its set timeframe. By focusing on mass registration, DSWD
For the past decade, the Pantawid compromised its ability to target beneficiaries, monitor compliance, deliver
Pamilyang Pilipino Program has been the services, and ensure data reliability.
centerpiece of the government’s social
protection efforts helping millions of The program aims to keep children healthy and in school while breaking the
households living in poverty. Between inter-generational cycle of poverty. Since 2010, DSWD data shows that 88%
2008 and 2016, the program greatly of program beneficiaries have had access to government health services,
expanded its coverage from about such as preventive health check-ups, vaccinations, and deworming
282,917 to 4.4 million poor households. medicines. In addition, the program ensured that 90% of the 9,432,580
Budget allocations also increased from registered children attended school. Moreover, the 2015 National Household
₱299 million to ₱78.2 billion. DSWD Assessment found that about 1.3 million household beneficiaries transitioned
administers the program. above the poverty line. However, there is insufficient longitudinal evidence to
determine if the program caused this decline and thereby contributed to the
Prior impact evaluations have shown that goal of breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty. Furthermore, data
the program improved the poor’s access shows that increased access to basic health and education services of the
to health services and kept their children government does not automatically translate to better health and jobs for the
in school. However, public opinion beneficiaries.
surveys show that people perceive the
program as a ‘dole-out’ program that Poverty incidence data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (as of June
causes dependency. Furthermore, the 2015) shows that the program successfully targeted regions with the highest
sharp increases in funds and percentage of poor households. However, DSWD’s individual household
beneficiaries may have strained the targeting has problems. DSWD data (as of May 22, 2017) reflect that 31,389
program’s controls over program households that received benefits were non-poor and therefore ineligible.
implementation. These errors resulted from poor data gathering during the 2009 National
Household Assessment. According to program officials, the prior
COA assessed the extent to which the Administration had insufficient time and personnel to correct the data because
program (1) achieved its goals and its priority was on mass registration. As the Listahanan database is the main
objectives; (2) utilized the funds only to source of information on program beneficiaries from 2010-2015, the reported
poor households; and (3) used reliable 1.3 million households which transitioned above the poverty line is
data to allocate its funds. questionable, hence, the DSWD is still in the process of validating the
aforementioned report.
COA examined relevant laws, rules and Figure 1: Beneficiaries Registered from 2008-2015 v. 4Ps Staff from 2010-2017
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. Source: DSWD
What COA Recommends 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
COA recommends that DSWD maintain
of May 22, 2017, DSWD had identified 15,898 duplicate entries in its
the suspension of the expansion of the
database. Upon further testing, this audit found an additional 530 duplicate
program until (1) it completes its IT
entries in the database. During its expansion the program had inadequate IT
Systems upgrade, pursuant to its
support. The database and supporting structure was designed to handle
Information Systems Strategic Plan
300,000 households but the program rapidly expanded to nearly 4.4 million
(ISSP); (2) it eliminates duplicates and
households. As a result, systems users have been encountering systems lags
outliers in the database; (3) it completes
and shutdowns, thereby increasing the time to finish their processes. With the
its validation on the transitioning
change of administration in the middle of 2016, the DSWD implemented a
households; and (4) it reassesses its
moratorium on the acceptance of new households in order to focus on
staffing needs.
reassessing the program to identify and address existing gaps.
PAO-2017-01
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program
Contents
Letter 1
Background 3
While the 4Ps program has achieved positive and negative results 6
the government will need longer-term data to determine if the
program has made a difference in bootstrapping beneficiaries out of
poverty
Problems with the individual household targeting and IT Systems 20
aggravated the adverse effects of the rapid expansion of the
program
Even with the effort of the DSWD to cleanse its database, duplicates 35
and outliers still exist
Conclusion 42
Recommendations 43
Agency Comments 43
Appendix I Percent Distribution of the Population of High School Graduates by 44
Educational Attainment
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 i PAO-2017-01
Contents
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 ii PAO-2017-01
Abbreviations
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 iii PAO-2017-01
Abbreviations
SLP Sustainable Livelihood Program

SWA Social Worker Assistant
SWS Social Weather Stations
UFMU Unified Financial Management Unit
WB World Bank
Page iv PAO-2017-01
Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Commonwealth Avenue
Quezon City
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.
Page 1 PAO-2017-01
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 2 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

Background 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.
Page 3 PAO-2017-01
Figure 2: Annual Budget Allocation of 4Ps
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 .
Figure 3: 2016 4Ps Budget Summary
Source: DSWD Implementation of Conditional Cash Transfer Program Breakdown of CY 2016
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.
Page 4 PAO-2017-01
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.
Figure 4: Basic 4Ps Framework: Health and Education Investment used as “Pantawid” or a
Means to Cross the Poverty Line
Target Conditions Goal
Beneficiaries will receive the following: The program helps

To be eligible, beneficiaries: children graduate from
Health Grants high school by keeping
 Must be identified as poor them healthy and in
 ₱500.00 per month in exchange for availing
by the Listahanan; certain health services of the government such as
school through the cash
pre- and post-natal check-ups, immunization, and grants.
 Must be located in cities, deworming. Beneficiaries are also required to
municipalities selected for attend monthly family development sessions. The idea is that upon
4Ps; graduating from high
Education Grants (Maximum of 3 Children and
₱₱
given only 10 months per year)
school, children will be
 Must have children 0-18 equipped to pursue
years old or have a pregnant  ₱500.00 per month for High School students with further studies or start
member; and class attendance rate of 85%. working.
 ₱300.00 per month for Kinder or Elementary
 Must be willing and able to School students with class attendance rate of
With stable jobs, the
commit to the conditions 85% children will be able to
specified by the program break the inter-
Rice Subsidy generational cycle of
poverty.
 ₱600.00 – Must be an active beneficiary of 4Ps
Source: COA Analysis of DSWD Information
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
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.
Page 5 PAO-2017-01
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.
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
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 6 PAO-2017-01
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.
Program Covered In 2009, the DSWD, through the Listahanan, has identified about 5.2
93% of Eligible 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
Households 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 7 PAO-2017-01
Source: DSWD
Eighty eight percent DSWD has been successful in encouraging its beneficiaries to avail the
(88%) of the program health services of the government. However, based on spot check reports
and qualitative and quantitative evaluations, access to government health
beneficiaries receive services does not guarantee that children will be healthy.
health services,
however, access to Figure 6 shows that, from 2010 to 2016, the program consistently
registered above 88% compliance with the health conditions of the
government health program, such as deworming, immunization and preventive check-ups.
services does not
automatically equate
to healthiness
Figure 6: Yearly Average Health Condition Compliance Rate (2010-2016)
Source: DSWD
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.
Page 8 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 9 PAO-2017-01
program knowledge of beneficiaries, particularly when it comes to their

duties and responsibilities as 4Ps stakeholders.35
Figure 7: Deworming per Region (2010-2016)
Source: DSWD
Figure 8: Immunization per Region (2010-2016)
Source: DSWD
35
Philippine Survey and Research Center, Comparative Study of Regional Differences in Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program Implementation, p. 59.
Page 10 PAO-2017-01
Figure 9: Pre & Post Natal Check-ups per Region (2010-2016)
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 11 PAO-2017-01
Ninety percent (90%) DSWD has been successful in encouraging registered children to attend
of registered children classes. However, due to the late inclusion of children ages 15-18, DSWD
was not able to maximize the possible gains of the program.
regularly attend
school, however, only Furthermore, there is insufficient data to determine whether increased
4% have graduated access to primary and secondary public education would guarantee that
the beneficiaries will be properly equipped to pursue further studies or to
from high school 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.
Figure 10: Yearly Average Education Condition Compliance Rate (2010-2016)
Source: DSWD
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.
Figure 11: Day Care per Region (2010-2016)
Source: DSWD
Page 12 PAO-2017-01
Figure 12: Elementary per Region (2010-2016)
Source: DSWD
Figure 13: High School per Region (2014-2016)
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
41
Ibid, p. 36.
Page 13 PAO-2017-01
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.
Figure 14: Number of Students who Graduated with the Help of 4Ps
Source: DSWD
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
44
NAC Resolution No. 12, s. 2013.
Page 14 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 15 PAO-2017-01
4Ps contributes in At the onset, Senior DSWD Officials clarified that they have established on
breaking the inter- 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
generational cycle of latest version of the programs’ Operations Manual. DSWD further clarifies
poverty however that breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty is the long term goal
there is insufficient of the program. Hence, observable changes in the economic status of the
data to determine its beneficiaries will only manifest after years of program implementation.
extent 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 rate 51 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.
Page 16 PAO-2017-01
Figure 15: Number of Transitioning Beneficiaries
70% 30 %
30%
70%
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.
There are existing “Palliative, unsustainable, and government dole-out – these are the
programs common criticisms against 4Ps. Critics argue that the program's palliative
characteristic is because it does not have long lasting effects against
complementing 4Ps poverty. In their view, the huge amount of resources spent on 4Ps would
which brings a be better spent on job creation and training that would teach the poor how
broader approach in to fish”.53 Even the DSWD management has said that 4Ps is not enough to
the government’s alleviate poverty and that it is only a social protection program. There
should be different levels of intervention, and it should build up the
efforts to reduce capacity of the people to stand on their own.54 A look into to the program
poverty 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.
Page 17 PAO-2017-01
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.
Figure 16: Compliance Rate with the FDS Conditions by Year and by Year and Region
(2010-2016)
Source: DSWD
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 ways 59:
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 18 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
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 19 PAO-2017-01
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
Problems with the

individual household
targeting and IT
Systems aggravated
the adverse effects of
the rapid expansion of
the program
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 20 PAO-2017-01
Figure 17: 4Ps Process Cycle
SYSTEMS SUPPORTING SPECIFIC SYSTEMS SUPPORTING THE ENTIRE

MAIN PROCESS
PORTIONS OF THE PROCESS CYCLE PROCESS CYCLE
Selection of Provinces /
Listahanan
Municipalities
Supply-Side Assessment
Selection of Household
Beneficiaries
Registration and Validation

of Households
Beneficiary Data
Grievance Redress System
Management System
(GRS)
(BDMS)
Family Registry
Preparation
1st Release of Cash Grants
Verification of Compliance Compliance Verification

with Conditions System (CVS)
Succeeding Releases of Unified Financial

Cash Grants Management Unit (UFMU)
Source: COA Analysis of DSWD Data
Page 21 PAO-2017-01
4Ps has been Poverty incidence data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (as of June
successful in 2015) shows that the program successfully targeted regions with the
highest percentage of poor households. However, its individual household
targeting regions with targeting has problems. DSWD data (as of May 22, 2017) reflect that
high percentage of 31,389 households that received benefits were non-poor and therefore
poor households but ineligible. These errors and inconsistencies are mainly a result of the poor
its individual data gathering implemented by Listahanan during its 2009 Household
Assessment.
household targeting
has operational As a background, 4Ps follows a two-step process in selecting beneficiaries
issues 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.
Figure 18: Beneficiaries Covered per Region v. PSA Data on

Poverty Incidence per Region
Source: DSWD, PSA
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
66
Listahanan Operations Manual, 2015 ed., p. 13.
Page 22 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 23 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 24 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
Innate deficiencies in Initially, Listahanan was the only source of potential beneficiaries for 4Ps.
the design of the 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,
Listahanan DSWD, through NAC Resolution Nos. 6, 17, 19 and 21 adopted a Modified
necessitated the Conditional Cash Transfer Program (MCCT) to target poor households not
creation of the covered by Listahanan.83 According to the 4Ps Operations Manual, there
Modified Conditional 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
Cash Transfer other Protective Programs due to the fact they do not meet the minimum
Program 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
Page 25 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.
Problems with the Beneficiary Data Management System (BDMS) is another major system
incompleteness of supporting the operations of 4Ps. It ensures that all validated eligible
households are enrolled in the program and the beneficiary data used in
the data and the the program implementation is updated and accurate. This is another
rapid expansion of component of 4Ps which ensures that only eligible beneficiaries receive
the program made it the grants. However, pursuant to its mandate under the 4Ps Operations
difficult to eliminate Manual, it is only limited to verifying whether households identified by
Listahanan have children ages 0-18 or a pregnant member. Upon
duplicates and evaluation, we found that the BDMS have encountered three (3) notable
outliers in the problems: (1) incompleteness of the data provided to it during beneficiary
database 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.
Page 26 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 27 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
The rapid expansion Compliance Verification System (CVS) is another major system of 4Ps.
of the program made CVS is the system used by DSWD to monitor the faithfulness of the
beneficiaries in complying with the conditions set by the program. The
it difficult for field compliance data produced by this system is the basis for the amount of
workers to adjust cash grants that will be released to the beneficiaries. As discussed in the
with their increased background, DSWD conducts compliance monitoring in partnership with
caseload 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.
Page 28 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
Figure 19: Comparative Charts of Beneficiary Increase and Employee Increase
Source: DSWD
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
102
103
PMED Interview, supra note 25, pp. 9-11.
104
Ibid.
Page 29 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
Even with the The Grievance Redress System (GRS) is the system that captures and
continuous resolves grievances related to program implementation. GRD, through the
GRS, receive grievances from all levels, with the intent to resolve these in
developments and a timely manner.
enhancements, the
Grievance Redress GRD Accomplishment Data as of February 2017 indicate that the division
System still has room 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
for improvements 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
106
107
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.
Page 30 PAO-2017-01
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.
`
Figure 20: Number and Types of Complaints Filed Yearly
8%
32%
59% 48% 39% 60% 27%
74.66%
%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: DSWD
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.
Page 31 PAO-2017-01
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.
Figure 21: Amount Allocated Figure 22: Amount Already

to GRS Delisted Households Disbursed to GRS Delisted
Households
Source: COA analysis of DSWD data
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.
Page 32 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
118
Grievance Redress Manual, DSWD, 2013 ed., p. 30.
Page 33 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 34 PAO-2017-01
Even with the effort of

the DSWD to cleanse
its database, duplicates
and outliers still exist
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.
Figure 23: Number of Households Delisted or Removed
Source: DSWD
121
BDMD Interview, supra note 80, p.5.
Page 35 PAO-2017-01
The agency has also identified 15,898 duplicates, most of which come
from the ARMM.
Figure 24: Number of Identified Duplicates

Source: DSWD
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).
Figure 25: Number of Outliers in the List of Households

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.
Page 36 PAO-2017-01
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.
Figure 26: Number of Outliers Found in the Household Roster
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.
Figure 27: Number of Additional Duplicates Found in the PPIS
123
4Ps Operations Manual, supra note 10, p.1.
124
Exit Conference, supra note 33, pp. 11-12.
Page 37 PAO-2017-01
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.
Figure 28: Number of Active Duplicates Found in the PPIS
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.
Page 38 PAO-2017-01
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”.
Figure 29: Amounts Recorded as “Claimed” by Delisted Duplicates
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 39 PAO-2017-01
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.
Figure 30: Computed Cash Grants of Households who were

Subsequently Delisted as Duplicates
Source: DSWD Data
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 .
Figure 31: Percentage of Yearly Increase/Decrease of Computed

Cash Grants of Households who were Subsequently Delisted as
Duplicates Households
Computed Cash Grants of Hhs % of Yearly

Year Who Were Subsequently Decrease /
Delisted as Duplicates 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
Page 40 PAO-2017-01
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.
Figure 32: Computed Cash Grants vs. Amount Remitted to the

Bureau of Treasury (2008-2016)
Computed
Cash Grants
Total Amount
Year Registered as
Remitted to BTr
“Claimed” by
Duplicate
Households
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
Source: DSWD Data
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.
Figure 33: Comparison of Computed Cash Grants of Households

who were Subsequently Delisted as Duplicates to Yearly Budget
COMPUTED CASH % of
GRANTS of HHS computed
WHO WERE cash
YEAR YEARLY BUDGET
SUBSEQUENTLY grants to
DELISTED AS Yearly
DUPLICATES 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
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.
Page 41 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.
Conclusions 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.
Page 42 PAO-2017-01
Recommendations 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.
Agency Comments 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 abjuliano@coa.gov.ph. 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
Page 43 PAO-2017-01
Appendix I: Percent Distribution of the

Population of High School Graduates by
Computation 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 20.3%

only
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:
20.3%
x =
45.4%
x = 44.71% or 44.7%
For those who pursued Post-Secondary education:
4.5%
x =
45.4%
9.91% or
x =
9.9%
126
2013 FLEMMS, Supra Note 42, p. 21.
127
Ibid.
128
Ibid.
129
Ibid.
130
Ibid.
Page 44 PAO-2017-01
Appendix I: Percent Distribution of the

Population of High School Graduates by
For those who were able to take units in college:
9.3%
x =
45.4%
20.48% or
x =
20.5%
For those who were able to graduate from college or have taken further
studies:
11.3%
x =
45.4%
24.89% or
x =
24.9%
Page 45 PAO-2017-01
Appendix II: Survey on

Program Awareness
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.
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
Page 46 PAO-2017-01
Appendix II: Survey on

Program Awareness
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
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 47 PAO-2017-01
Appendix III: COA

Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
COA Contact Assistant Commissioner Alexander B. Juliano, (02) 952-5700 local 2022
or abjuliano@coa.gov.ph.
Staff In addition to the contact named above, Emelita R. Quirante (Director IV),
Acknowlegments 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.
Page 48 PAO-2017-01

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Audit Report

DSWD Should Maintain the

What COA Found

Figure 21:Amount Allocated to GRS Delisted Households

4Ps Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

SLP Sustainable Livelihood Program

October 12, 2017

UNDERSECRETARY EMMANUEL A. LEYCO

Dear Undersecretary Leyco:

In line with its vision to become an enabling partner of the government in

To highlight the aforementioned paradox, in 2017, the current

at https://www.adb.org/publications/social-protection-support-project-philippines, (last accessed

process of reviewing the program.7 While reviewing, DSWD declared that

We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to June 2017 in

According to DSWD documentation, 4Ps is a social protection measure of

4Ps provides cash grants to beneficiary households who were able to

It is modelled after Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs that have

In its efforts to make the economic growth in the Philippines more

Figure 2: Annual Budget Allocation of 4Ps

Sources: 2008-2017 General Appropriations Acts

Figure 3: 2016 4Ps Budget Summary

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

In 2017, DSWD granted all active beneficiaries of 4Ps additional cash

National Advisory Committee (NAC) Resolution No. 36, s. 2016.16

Target Conditions Goal

Beneficiaries will receive the following: The program helps

As can be gleaned from Figure 4, the government designed the program

While the 4Ps program

According to the 4Ps Operations Manual, the goal of the program is to

1. To improve preventive health care of pregnant women and young

a. to increase growth and nutrition monitoring visits of infants and

2. To increase the enrolment and attendance rate of children in day

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

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

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

6. To enhance the performance of parenting roles of beneficiaries

As mentioned earlier, prior administration aggressively increased funding

Figure 5: Beneficiary Coverage (2008-2015)

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

In order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the program, DSWD

by 1 at 12%.28 And in 2017, 14% were still found to be underweight.29 It

In response to the general limitations of the program, DSWD Senior

program knowledge of beneficiaries, particularly when it comes to their

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)

According to PSRC, “as a result of their unawareness of the program’s

“Another common challenge for beneficiaries in Manila and Makati is the

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)

To place the aforementioned data into perspective, the 2013 Functional

Despite recording above 90% compliance rate with the education

It is also worthy to note that before the implementation of the EAC,

Furthermore, based on the 2013 FLEMMS, of the 37.18 million Filipinos

As discussed in the previous subsection, 4Ps had just extended its

In 2015, Listahanan conducted its National Household Assessment to

Figure 15: Number of Transitioning Beneficiaries

Source: 2017 General Appropriations Act

Lastly, the amount of cash grants is small. Beneficiaries receive a

deepen the understanding as a household beneficiary and encourage peer

FDS also involve different modules on parenthood, behaviour