4.4.

Marital status of the household head

Categories Chi-square p-value Decision
value

Clothing 34.745 0.177 Do not reject Ho

Education 9.128 0.692 Do not reject Ho

Entertainment & Travel 28.716 0.634 Do not reject Ho

Food and Drinks 3.307 0.914 Do not reject Ho

Insurance 31.357 0.301 Do not reject Ho

Medical care 17.463 0.356 Do not reject Ho

Savings 18.022 0.802 Do not reject Ho

Transportation 28.713 0.427 Do not reject Ho

Utilities – Electricity, Water, Mobile, Cable 14.241 0.818 Do not reject Ho

TV, Internet, Rent

Liquor and Cigarettes 24.039 0.459 Do not reject Ho

Results revealed that there is no relationship between the Marital status of the household head
and all categories of expenses. Table 4.4 presents that majority or 56 (64.37%) of the household
heads were already married. 7 or 8.05 % of them were separated, 3 or 3.45% were still single and
13 or 14.94% are already widowed.
There was also a significant number of household heads, accounting to 8 or 9.20% who are
living with their partners without submitting yet their selves to matrimony. The marital status of
the household heads might affect the legitimacy of their children. This would lead to problems in
the future especially if conditions in choosing the children-beneficiaries under the 4Ps will be
updated considering the legitimacy of the children.

4.5. Highest educational attainment of the household head

Categories rs p-value Decision

Clothing 0.156 0.151 Do not reject Ho

Education 0.024 0.826 Do not reject Ho

Entertainment & Travel -0.063 0.566 Do not reject Ho

 Food and Drinks 0.078 0.475 Do not reject Ho

Insurance 0.016 0.884 Do not reject Ho

Medical care 0.095 0.383 Do not reject Ho

Savings 0.022 0.838 Do not reject Ho

Transportation 0.173 0.112 Do not reject Ho

Utilities – Electricity, Water, Mobile, Cable -0.254* 0.019 Reject Ho

TV, Internet, Rent

Liquor and Cigarettes 0.152 0.161 Do not reject Ho

Table 4.5 unveiled that the highest educational attainment of the majority or 34.48% of
the household heads finished elementary level only, 9.20% or 8 of the household heads were
high school graduates and fortunately, there was one household head who was able to graduate in
college.
Table 4. 5 shows the Highest educational attainment of the household head. The
educational attainment of the household head has a substantial impact on utility allocation and
expenditures such as electricity, water, mobile, cable, TV, internet, and rent. Education helps
individuals to have more financial opportunities. Therefore, the higher education the household
heads obtain, the lower the risk of poverty they have.

4.6. Highest educational attainment of the household members

Categories rs p-value Decision

Clothing -0.014 0.900 Do not reject Ho

Education 0.014 0.901 Do not reject Ho

Entertainment & Travel 0.063 0.564 Do not reject Ho

Food and Drinks 0.073 0.504 Do not reject Ho

Insurance 0.079 0.466 Do not reject Ho

Medical care 0.043 0.694 Do not reject Ho

Savings -0.061 0.575 Do not reject Ho

Transportation -0.103 0.343 Do not reject Ho

 Utilities – Electricity, Water, Mobile, Cable 0.325** 0.002 Reject Ho
TV, Internet, Rent

Liquor and Cigarettes -0.145 0.181 Do not reject Ho

Table 4. 6 shows the Highest educational attainment of the household members. The same took
place with regards to household members' and the household head's highest educational
attainment, as it has a substantial impact on how much money is allocated for and spent on
utilities like power, water, mobile, cable, TV, internet, and rent.
The education level of the household members is a significant factor of the poverty rate and
should be considered when assessing the struggle with poverty. This implies that the household-
beneficiaries were really struggling with poverty, since most of the household members finished
only high school level.

4.7. Gross monthly income

Categories rs p-value Decision

Clothing 0.141 0.192 Do not reject Ho

Education 0.023 0.834 Do not reject Ho

Entertainment & Travel -0.043 0.690 Do not reject Ho

Food and Drinks 0.054 0.621 Do not reject Ho

Insurance 0.175 0.105 Do not reject Ho

Medical care 0.305** 0.004 Reject Ho

Savings -0.103 0.344 Do not reject Ho

Transportation 0.077 0.478 Do not reject Ho

Utilities – Electricity, Water, Mobile, Cable 0.203 0.059 Do not reject Ho

TV, Internet, Rent

Liquor and Cigarettes -0.100 0.358 Do not reject Ho

Table 4.7 shows the Gross monthly income. Except for medical care, all other categories
of expenses had higher p-values than rs. Hence, there is a significant relationship between gross
monthly income and expenses along medical care. Income is a significant determinant of family
economic success. In this study, the household beneficiaries belonged to poor families as to their
average monthly income.

4.8. Average monthly living cost

Categories rs p-value Decision

Clothing 0.141 0.194 Do not reject Ho

Education -0.008 0.939 Do not reject Ho

Entertainment & Travel 0.128 0.239 Do not reject Ho

Food and Drinks 0.077 0.481 Do not reject Ho

Insurance 0.269* 0.012 Reject Ho

Medical care 0.196 0.069 Do not reject Ho

Savings 0.035 0.747 Do not reject Ho

Transportation 0.003 0.980 Do not reject Ho

Utilities – Electricity, Water, Mobile, Cable 0.380** 0.000 Reject Ho

TV, Internet, Rent

Liquor and Cigarettes -0.020 0.855 Do not reject Ho

Table 1.8 shows that majority (47) or 54.02% of the household beneficiaries revealed
that their monthly living cost was within the range of Php. 5,000-Php. 9,999. It only meant that
majority of the households were below poverty threshold.
Table 4.8 shows the Average monthly living cost. Except for insurance and utilities, all other
categories of expenses had higher p-values than rs. It means that there is a significant
relationship between monthly living cost and expenses along insurance and utilities.

4.9. Years as beneficiaries

Categories rs p-value Decision

Clothing -0.074 0.496 Do not reject Ho

Education 0.159 0.141 Do not reject Ho

Entertainment & Travel -0.051 0.640 Do not reject Ho

 Food and Drinks 0.027 0.804 Do not reject Ho

Insurance 0.055 0.610 Do not reject Ho

Medical care 0.214* 0.047 Reject Ho

Savings -0.033 0.758 Do not reject Ho

Transportation 0.072 0.507 Do not reject Ho

Utilities – Electricity, Water, Mobile, Cable 0.064 0.559 Do not reject Ho

TV, Internet, Rent

Liquor and Cigarettes -0.202 0.060 Do not reject Ho

Table 4.9 shows the number of years as beneficiaries of the program. With the exception
of medical care, all and other categories of expenses had higher p-values than rs. And if rs is
equal to or above p-value, then we REJECT the null hypothesis. As a result shown in Table 4.9,
there is a significant relationship between respondents’ years as beneficiaries and expenses along
medical care.

4.10. Employment status of Father

Categories Chi-square p-value Decision
value

Clothing 30.956 0.074 Do not reject Ho

Education 31.366** 0.000 Reject Ho

Entertainment & Travel 44.545** 0.007 Reject Ho

Food and Drinks 7.068 0.315 Do not reject Ho

Insurance 29.001 0.114 Do not reject Ho

Medical care 24.945* 0.015 Reject Ho

Savings 23.131 0.186 Do not reject Ho

Transportation 28.269 0.133 Do not reject Ho

Utilities – Electricity, Water, Mobile, Cable 37.810** 0.001 Reject Ho

TV, Internet, Rent

Liquor and Cigarettes 14.507 0.695 Do not reject Ho

 Table 4.10 shows the Employment status of Father. With the exception of education,
entertainment and travel, medical care, and utilities. As a result shown in Table 4.10, there is a
significant relationship between the employment status of the father and expenses along
education, entertainment and travel, medical care, and utilities. Thus, this implies that the
household-beneficiaries in Linao East, Cagayan were really deserving to be included in the
program. However, they need to work hard in order to uplift their economic status in the future
by attending the education and health of their children covered by the program.