Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology

Graduate School
Public Administration

RESEARCH PAPER

A Final Requirement in
PA 221
ECOLOGY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

By: JANNA LORENCE S. PENILLA, RSW

MPA Student
Social Welfare Officer II
Department of Social Welfare and Development

Submitted to: Dr. Yolanda I. Camaya

Instructor/Professor

*The researcher chose the topic because it is timely and relevant to the present situation and issue of the DSWD
which is the effectiveness of one of the department’s program.*
 Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps):
Advantages, Disadvantages and Effectiveness on
Social Welfare and Development

INTRODUCTION

Conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs are engaged in an integrated approach in human capital formation
and cutting poverty levels. These programs offer monetary transfer to poor families upon their compliance with the
program requirements. These requirements – usually associated with health and nutrition, education and social
development – are intended to break the intergenerational cycle of destitution in different societies.

Dr. Virola (2011), Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board, said in his presentation
of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics that a Filipino needed PhP 974 in 2009 to meet his or her monthly food needs
and PhP 1,403 to stay out of poverty. In 2009, a family of five needed PhP 4, 869 monthly income to meet food needs
and PhP 7, 017 to stay out of poverty. Results of the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey also revealed that
one in every five Filipino households, or an estimated 4.3 million families, experienced involuntary hunger in the third
quarter of the year 2011.

The Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs serves as the government’s answers to the pressing issues
regarding poverty. Calvo (2011) defines the CCT as programs that provide cash benefits to finance the basic needs
and foster investment in human capital to extremely poor households. These benefits are conditioned on certain
behaviors, usually related to investments in nutrition, health, and education.

The emergence of CCT programs occurred during the late 1990s, with Mexico’s innovative Progresa (now
Opurtunidades) program emerging as one of the earliest schemes in 1997. The evidences highlighting the effectiveness
of Progresa motivated a rise in similar programs across Latin America. Throughout the late 1990s and into the early
part of the new century, CCT programs were implemented in Honduras, Brazil and Nicaragua.

CCT programs are presently being implemented in several Latin American countries including Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Jamaica, Mexico, and several more. Indonesia and Pakistan are only some of the Asian countries which
employ the CCT programs as a major tool of their social policy. In general, these programs provide money and
financial assistance to poor families under the condition that those transfers are used as an investment on their
children’s’ human capital, such as regular school attendance and basic preventive health care. The main mission of
most CCT programs is to prevent inter-generational transference of poverty, that is to say, investing in young children
and providing them with the provisions necessary for better opportunities in the future.

In the Philippines, a CCT initiative was locally adopted. It is designed to eradicate extreme poverty in the
country and promote social development and human capital formation among the poor and vulnerable households by
investing in health and education. It provides financial aid to the so called ‘poorest of the poor’ families.

PANTAWID PAMILYANG PILIPINO PROGRAM: AN OVERVIEW

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) is a right based program that focuses on human capital
investment through provision of health and education cash grants to eligible poor households. The program helps to
fulfill the country’s commitment to meet the Millennium Development Goals; namely, to eradicate extreme poverty
and hunger; to achieve universal primary education; to promote gender equality; to reduce child mortality; and to
improve maternal health.
 First introduced in 2007, Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino, a CCT program, was tested in the municipalities of
Sibagat and Esperanza in Agusan del Sur, the municipalities of Lopez Jaena and Bonifacio in Misamis Occidental,
the CARAGA Region, and the cities of Pasay and Caloocan.

In 2008, the formal implementation of Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino started and it was renamed as Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). The Department of Social Welfare and Development set guidelines and objectives
implemented with the coordinated inter-agency network among the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps): The
Effectiveness on Social Welfare and Development set guidelines and objectives implemented with the coordinated
inter-agency network among the Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Health (DOH), Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG), the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and the local government
units (LGUs), given with specific functions in ensuring the efficiency of 4Ps. The target beneficiaries of 4Ps are poor
families from the priority poor provinces and cities. An eligible household can have three (3) qualified children ranging
from 0-14 years old. The selected families have 5 years maximum membership in the program. Currently, the
maximum membership limit for the chosen household was terminated and the range of qualified children’s age is
extended to 18 years old.

The eligible households are chosen from the selected municipalities or cities among selected provinces based
on the incidence of poverty. Registration and validation of household beneficiaries comes after the selection of eligible
households. The list of selected eligible households shall be posted in strategic areas in the barangay to let the people
know who among the poor households in the community were selected. After the given period for posting, a
community assembly shall be conducted.

The beneficiaries should comply with the conditions of the program with specific verifiable behavior such as
pregnant women undergoing preventive health check-ups, children 0-5 years old undergoing growth monitoring and
receiving vaccinations, and the children aged 3-14 years old enrolled in Day Care, kindergarten, primary and
secondary and alternative delivery modes of education maintaining at least an 85% attendance. The parents should
also attend Family Development Sessions. Qualified households shall receive a health assistance of Php 500 per month
(or Php 6,000 per year) and for education, Php 300 to 500 per child per month (or Php 3,000 to 5,000 per child for the
10-month school year). A family with three qualified children can then potentially receive Php 1,400 to 2,000 per
month during the school year. This is as much as Php 15,000 to 21,000 each year.

The grants are released on a regular basis as established by the National Project Management Office to the
beneficiary households for the duration of their participation in the program. Payments of grants is subject to
suspension or termination if the compliance verification to eligible households shows violation of rules and misuse of
the grants by the beneficiary or may be terminated by rules, such as the youngest child in the households has turned
18 and/or the program implementation period has already been completed for the household.

As long as there is a qualified child or children, the beneficiary families will be considered as members of
the program. They will be monitored and evaluated if there’s a change in their standard of living. Pantawid Pamilyang
Pilipino Program (4Ps), at present, is considered one of the largest among 63 countries having CCT programs. From
the initial target of 582,000 households in 436 municipalities and 37 cities in 53 provinces, the program now covers
4,326,208 households in 1,484 municipalities and 143 cities in 79 provinces. Its beneficiaries are continuously
growing in numbers with the government hoping that it would lessen the great economic gap among the haves and the
do not haves.

This study is an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) on the
social welfare and development of its beneficiaries in Brgy. Butong, City of Cabuyao, Laguna. Program beneficiaries
were selected through the random sampling method and asked to complete a questionnaire covering the profile of the
household beneficiaries, the support provided by the program, and the program’s level of effectiveness on social
welfare and development.
Statement of the Problem

This study aims to assert the advantages, disadvantages and effectiveness of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino
Program (4Ps), the conditional cash transfer program in the Philippines, in addressing the poverty health care and
basic education problems in the Philippines. The researchers strongly agree that the 4Ps can help alleviate, not
intensify, the problem of poverty in the Philippines. Furthermore, the researchers believe that the 4Ps provides not
only short term benefits but also long term assistance necessary for the improvement of the Philippine society.

Objectives

In respect to the previously stated problem, the researchers hope to accomplish the following objectives:

1. To assert the advantages of the 4Ps in addressing the poverty, health care, and basic education problems in the
Philippines.

2. To discuss the disadvantages of the 4Ps as asserted by various groups and experts who have studied the program.

3. To confirm the beneficial effects of 4Ps by reviewing early assessments of the program.

4. To classify the challenges of the 4Ps and outline proposals by various sectors to improve it.

ADVANTAGES OF THE 4Ps

The “CCT programs address both future poverty, by fostering human capital accumulation among the young
as a means of breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty and current poverty, by providing income support
for consumption in the short run” (Rawlings & Rubio, 2005, p. 33). Indeed, the main objective of the 4Ps and other
CCT programs is to prevent inter-generational transference of poverty and help break the infinite cycle of poverty by
providing the children the suitable educational and health assistance so as to help them develop the facilities for a
better future. Investing in children’s human capital and ensuring that they grow into educated and healthy adults, is
the equivalent of teaching them how to fish. Healthy, educated children ultimately have more choices in life and are
able to become productive members of society (Bloom, 2008).

Furthermore, the implementation of the 4Ps lessens the incidence of child labor and other forms of child
abuse. In cases of the other CCT programs implemented in other countries, there are two interrelated mechanisms
found to help combat child labor. First, through their cash subsidy component, schooling’s directs costs are reduced,
thereby inducing families to send their children to school, as opposed to work. Second, these programs require families
to have their children attend school, 85% of the school days per month in the case of the 4Ps, in exchange to cash
subsidy. This requirement increases the time children spend in school and reduces the time they can allocate to work
(Gee, 2010). There is a noticeable increase in the number of enrollees in many elementary schools in areas included
in the scope of the 4Ps, and kindergarten classes were being established to answer the need of the community in
compliance to the condition of sending 0-5 years old children in day care centers and preschools (DSWD, 2009).
Subsequently, if collaborative compliance to this requirement of the 4Ps is ensured, the literacy rate of the children is
also expected to increase.

In the long run, the 4Ps as well as the other CCT programs, aims to establish social equality and mobility
through education. As mentioned by Gundlach, Navarro de Pablo, & Weiser (2010), the centrality of education in
poverty-reduction policies stems from the belief that education is a powerful equalizer and the main asset of most
people. Sen & Dreze (as cited by Calvo, 2011) incorporates the notion of inequality and social exclusion as obstacles
for the construction of a system of rights and opportunities. Accordingly, people are poor not just because of a lack of
economic resources to satisfy basic needs, but also because they live in a social, economic and political system which
does not provide equality of opportunities. The 4Ps intend to provide the basis for this much needed equality by
providing the poor people with the education that they could not access otherwise.

Malnutrition, which is prevalent among extremely poor families, is also expected to decrease. Since it is a
prime requirement for beneficiaries to avail of the health services being offered in their health centers such as pre- and
post-natal services, vaccination, and periodical check-ups before acquiring their money grants, the health and nutrition
of the poor families are safeguarded.

The 4Ps also promotes gender empowerment seeing as the responsibility of managing the cash grants are
given to the mother. This decision is based on the experience in CCT programs showing that women make relatively
better use of grant money by using it to purchase food and/or other necessities such as medicines, transportations and
school supplies.

In the nutshell, the underlying concept of the CCT programs, and of the 4Ps as wells, is: once individuals are
healthy, better fed, and educated, they will be able to overcome poverty in the long run (Valencia, 2009).

DISADVANTAGES OF THE 4Ps

Like any other government program, the 4Ps also have its disadvantages that may encumber its helpful
benefits. One of the most crucial characteristic of the 4Ps and other CCT programs implemented in other countries is
its being a ‘demand-side’ intervention instead of being a ‘supply-side’ intervention. That is, in order to be considered
as a beneficiary of the program, one must concede with the government’s demands and conditionalities (Coady &
Parker, 2002). This is remarkably notable in the conditions concerning education and health services where the
beneficiaries being brought into the education and health services system instead of expanding the education and
health systems in order to reach them.

Furthermore, as previously mentioned, poverty in the country is not only caused by the lack of economical
resources, but also because of socio-economic and political factors that prevent the equality and distribution of
resources. Although the 4Ps aims to provide the poor with the education which is, otherwise, inaccessible, it does not
directly answer the socio-economic and political problems that are the primary cause of poverty. In the case of the 4Ps
in the Philippines, it does not answer the issues regarding the political and economic elite families. And poverty can
only be totally alleviated if there are programs that could target its roots.

The 4Ps will also encounter some difficulties in achieving support from the other social classes, mainly
because it does not benefit middle-income groups which have also been steadily affected by limited universal services
and decreases in employment (Cuesta, 2007). These middle-income groups are also suffering from issues of poverty
and limited access to educational and health benefits, but are not included in the target population of the 4Ps. The 4Ps
is programmed to help only the extremely poor.

Another major disadvantage of the 4Ps implementation is that it requires a huge amount of finance which we
do not have at the present. The 4Ps is a loan driven program, much of the funds constituting the conditional cash grants
given to beneficiaries are generated from loans abroad, particularly from the United States. By the tail-end of August
2010, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved a US$400 million loan specifically for the 4Ps which will run
from 2011 to 2014. This comprises 45.2 per cent of the total cost of US$884.2 million, where US$484 million serves
as the government’s counterpart. Having ADB’s US$400 million in addition to the World Bank’s US$405 million,
makes two-thirds of the whole 4Ps from 2009 to 2014 comprised of loans (Somera, 2010, p. 6). Arguments against
the 4Ps point out that despite the large amounts of financial resources needed to implement the program; it does not
generate guaranteed returns to the economy as much as infrastructure projects like construction of roads, bridges, and
railways do.
 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 4Ps

1. In terms of HEALTHCARE

• Greater access to professional birthing facilities: 7 in 10 childbirths versus 5 in 10 among non-beneficiary

households. Mothers and their newborns also had increased access to postnatal care (Hayakawa et al.,
2015).
• Expanded the range of healthcare services beneficiaries attended, including weight monitoring and
receiving critical dietary supplements.
• The number of children that undertake deworming at schools and receive vaccines from health centres has
dramatically increased.
• Participants benefit from health seminars and development sessions in their communities.
• Recipients are far more likely to be enrolled in the PhilHealth health insurance programme, further
increasing their chances of receiving suitable healthcare (Olfindo and Fernandez, 2011).

2. In terms of EDUCATION

• One of the main objectives outlined for the 4Ps is to increase the enrolment of children in primary,
secondary and kindergarten schooling. The conditionality states that all child beneficiaries should have an
85% attendance rate at school. As mentioned earlier, compliance is extremely high.
• There has been a marked decrease in child labour, one of the original aims of the 4Ps.
• The retention rate of elementary schools dramatically decreased, in some cases, down to 0%. The retention
rate refers to the number of students who need to repeat the year. This reduction is an exceptionally
favourable outcome (Torre, B. 2016).
• Parents reported an increase in access to healthcare and education has improved the prospects for their
children’s future.

CONCLUSION AND RECCOMMENDATION

A popular Chinese proverb goes: "You give a poor man a fish and you feed him for a day. You teach him to
fish and you give him an occupation that will feed him for a lifetime." Many argue that the 4Ps program is not teaching
the beneficiaries how to fish. But how can you teach them to catch their food when they are already dying of hunger?
How can you entice them to learn a livelihood when they are constantly worrying about how they're going to feed
their families? How can you ask them to find a good job when they can't read and write?

The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programs poses many appealing objectives, goals and benefits for the poor
families that comprises most of the Philippine’s population. The 4Ps is a good example of strengthening the
government’s capability of distributing the country’s resources to those who are extremely in need. It is undeniable
that there are many poor households that will benefit from the said program, and that the program covers the basic
needs that otherwise would go unmet. Likewise, the government’s effort in making the country’s educational and
health services system inclusive is a huge step towards social mobility and equality. The researchers feel strongly
about the 4Ps’ principle that well-fed and educated citizens are imperative for a productive country and society.

However, it is also undeniable that the 4Ps, as well as the other CCT programs being implemented in other
countries, is not the perfect solution. There are many insufficiencies that the program might face in the long run of its
implementation. And as a new policy here in the Philippines, the 4Ps will certainly need further revisions and studies
in the future.
 Nevertheless, I believe that for any government program to succeed, the government and the citizens must
arrive in a peaceful consensus. The government’s duty is to secure that the people’s needs are provided and their rights
are protected. And the citizens, in return, must use their full capacity to be productive and help the country. The
researchers believe that the implementation of the 4Ps is a good example of the concurring responsibilities of the
government and the citizens.

4Ps is effective in developing human capital as reflected by promotion of parent empowerment and
realization of their full potential as members of the family and of the society, improvement of children’s health, and
enhancement of children’s school attendance and grades, Lastly, this program support and the level of effectiveness
on social welfare and development is independent to each other.

The program is not perfect. But it is one of the few programs that gives direct assistance to poor households
without going through different channels of the bureaucracy. The 4Ps is one of the "best-targeted social safety net
programs in the world," according to the World Bank. Measures to guarantee that the program benefits those who
need it most are in place. Money for the program is not, as critics say, "being put to waste."
 REFERENCES:

Department of Social Welfare and Development Philippines (2017). Philippines’ Conditional

Cash Transfer (CCT) Program. Accessible: https://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/
Fiszbein et al. (2009). Conditional Cash Transfers Reducing Present and Future Poverty. The
World Bank. Accessible: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCCT/Resources/5757608-
1234228266004/PRR-CCT_web_noembargo.pdf
Hayakawa, H., van den Brink, R. J. E. and Posarac, A. (2015). Why Does the Conditional Cash
Transfer Program Matter in the Philippines? A Governance Perspective, The World Bank.
Accessible: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/383851468188930738/pdf/100523-BRI-
P150519-P082144-PUBLIC-ADD-SERIES-Box393236B-PH-SP-Note-No-7.pdf
Olfindo, R. and Fernandez, L. (2011) Overview of the Philippines’ Conditional Cash Transfer
Program: The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (Pantawid Pamilya), The World Bank.
Accessible: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/313851468092968987/pdf/628790BRI0
Phil0me0abstract0as0no010.pdf
Torre, B. (2016). “Financing Education through the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program
(4Ps)”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 6, No. 5.
Accessible: http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_6_No_5_May_2016/13.pdf

Bloom, K. (2008, May 17). CCT in Philippines is ‘teaching people how to fish’. Philippine Daily
Inquirer. http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080517-137087/CCT-in-
Philippines-is-teaching-people-how-to-fish.
Calvo, C. (2011). Social Work and conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America. Journal of
Sociology & Welfare, September 2011, Volume XXXVIII, Number 3.

Coady, D., & Parker, S. (2002). A cost-effectiveness analysis of demand and supply-side education
interventions: The case of PROGRESA in Mexico. Discussion Paper No. 127. International Food
Policy Research Institute.

Cuesta, J. (2007). Field report: On more ambitious conditional cash transfers, social protection, and
permanent reduction of poverty. Journal of International Development, 19, 1016-1019.

Diokno, B, (2011), Will CCT help or hurt the poor? . Available from: University of the Philippines,
School of Economics: http://econ.upd.edu.ph/faculty/bediokno/2010/10/12/will-cct-help-or-hurt-the-
poor/ [Accessed: Dec 18, 2011].
Gee, K. (2010). Reducing Child Labour Through Conditional Cash Transfers: Evidence from
Nicaragua’s Red de Protección Social. Development Policy Review. November 2010;28(6):711-732.

Gundlach, E., Navarro de Pablo, J., & Weisert, N. (2001). Education is good for the poor. Discussion
Paper No. 2001/137. World Institute for Development Economics Research.

More Filipinos going hungry, survey shows. Philippine Daily Inquirer. (September,
2011) http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/84129/more-filipinos-going-hungry-survey-shows