The Distributive Power of the Philippines National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction-NHTSPR Implication for Social Development (CSO Version)

THE DISTRIBUTIVE POWER OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD
TARGETING SYSTEM FOR POVERTY REDUCTION (NHTSPR): IMPLICATIONS

FOR NATIONAL SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Ernie H. Jarabejo
Graduate School of Philippine School of Social Work (PSSW)

Philippine Women’s University, Manila, Philippines
and
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) -MIMAROPA Region
1680 FT Benitez St, Malate, Manila
SEPTEMBER 2023
The Distributive Power of The Philippine National Household Targeting System For Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR): Implications For
National Social Development/ Philippine School of Social Work (PSSW) Philippine Women’s University, Manila and Department of
Social Welfare and Development –MIMAROPA Region, Philippines, By Ernie H. Jarabejo, March 2023
Page 1 of 49
I, The Problem
The proliferation of more than a dozen targeting systems have been implemented globally by both developed
and developing nations with the aim of bolstering the economy while shielding the most vulnerable citizens from the
harsh effects of the continuing global economic downturn. In particular in Latin American Countries (LAC), Asia and
the Pacific, the Middle East, and Northern Africa, the utilizations are clearly common in underdeveloped and transition
economies, island governments, and territories (MENA). Yet, targeting systems are also widely used in industrialized
nations in the West and Asia, where they are built for precise and legal goals and objectives. Despite targeting systems
for economic mitigation measures being included, the methodology is also used to address other related challenges.
In the Philippines, even classified as one of the middle-middle income countries in Asia, the
erratic poverty incidence rate annually has exacerbated the problem on social and human development, inspite
of the country’s strong fight to address multi-dimensional poverty through the numbers of targeting methodologies in
classifying the poor, one of those strategies is the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction or
LISTAHANAN using the Proxy Means Test PMT).
However, given the limitations of this fundamental reference of the country’s poor households as the official
targeting mechanism most especially in targeting the real poor (Tpoor) while reducing the enormous rate of leakage
(time, human resource, fiscal capitalization, mis-targeting), resulted to dis-enfranchisement of majority (80%) of the
Philippine poor populations.
The problems of mis-targeting is a big challenge to the World Bank-an institution develops and popularized
the targeting system across the world. These problems frequently occur on targeting mechanism, statistical models
(specifically on PMT), delivery mechanisms and other factors affecting the sound implementation of various social
protection and social welfare and development programs supported by empirical evidences, as a consequence
disenfranchisement social in-justice, equity and equality in the delivery of social welfare and social protection programs
directly boils down to social development quality of social welfare and development governance due to “short
sightedness” of political welfare culture, thus limiting its capability to address the pandemic of poverty.
As an initial response, the researcher opted to study the (re)distributive properties and power of the country’s
NHTSPR targeting delivery systems (statistics, programmatic and information technology system) of targeting the
legitimate poor by examining its strengths and weakness of the NHTSPR as a functional tool through the Distributive
Power (wealth/material distribution) and governance structural functionalities focus on Welfare, Rights and Social
Justice for the poor.
Page 2 of 49
Fig, 1,0 Location of the Municipal Study samples within the protected
Areas of Province of Palawan.
Page 3 of 49
Fig 2.0 Research Conceptual Framework and Procedures
TARGETING POVERTY
NHTSPR/
POOR ALLEVIATION
LISTAHANAN
RECIPIENTS AND
SOCIAL
JUSTICE
Data Analysis
Technical (Information Technology and Statistical design); Cross-indexing 1,2,3 (Insert procedures and steps);
Statistical design – formulation and review and evaluation of PMT Models and other instituted targeting mechanisms.
Programmatic (Eligibility criteria qualifications, targeting methodologies, delivery system and mechanisms),
the data will be coming from the respondents and official program documents.
Cost efficiency (administrative and legitimate beneficiary inputs), (other official program documents,
Liquidations, and parallel program specific studies)
Policy development interventions and Institutional arrangements. (Official program documents, Respondents
answers through structured interviews parallel individuals and program key officials/Implementers and FGDs).
Regression analysis and other statistical treatment that would fit to analyze the data will be employed.
II. Summary of Findings
The PMT results of the first and second cycles of Listahanan in the MIMAROPA Region and Province of
Palawan were used as the cardinal figures super population in the 1st to 3rd level cross indexing. The respondents were
disaggregated according to sex distribution by type of community, with 200 males serving as respondents, 99 males at
Coastal communities, 81 at agricultural communities, and 20 at IP communities. Likewise, 981 female respondents were
considered, 773 from coastal areas, 128 from agricultural communities, 80 from the IP communities to complete the
1,181 total respondents across type of communities. Three major data operations and analyses were performed for this
study: 1) the three-level cross indexing of PMT results against the 16 social protection programs (SPPs), 2) the
measurement of governance functions and structural functionalities, and program eligibility beneficiary selection
Page 4 of 49
(Eligibility), and 3) the calculation of predictive Distributive power of the Philippine National Household Targeting
System for Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR) through selective core variables.
Research Locale, Population, Sample and Frequency Distribution
Frequency Distribution of PMT of L2 and 3RD LEVEL CROSS INDEXING (LR01)
The study found out significant magnitude disparities between the PMT identified poor and "True
Poor/Legitimate Poor," or in common technical language, the chronic poor. The Listahanan 1 and 2 PMT identified
91,951 poor HHs, but the third level cross indexing result only identified 41,759 Tpoor HHS, a decrease of 45.41%.
Pantawid Pamilya was used as the representative social protection program, but the real number of "beneficiaries" was
71,828 HHs and 87,804 HHs for 429 barangays, respectively, a 28% fall in beneficiaries and a 5% decrease in the
number of legitimate poor recipients (Tpoor). These findings provided important new information regarding the
targeting system's implementation, particularly with regard to the identification of HH's grassroots community
development partners and the prioritizing and timing of implementation due to subpar segmentation.
LISTAHANAN 1 and 2 Poor, Non-Poor and 3RD Level Cross Indexing on 16 Social Protection Programs
The study considered 16 social protection programs from national and local government unit as a study area
with a total of 1,207,172 sub-populations, 685,960 of which were poor sub-samples subjected to second and third-level
cross-indexing in each program. The average number of poor program beneficiaries in 188 barangays was 42,873, with
a geographic exclusion rate of 245. Only 17.45% of the beneficiaries' subpopulations for the 16 SPP implemented in
2016 and 2017 through the SG2 SPP accounting were legitimate grassroots program recipients development partners
(Tpoor). Each SPP-covered barangays has 382 actual true poor, with the maximum number of true poor program
participants ranging from 1,836 to 1,852. To identify the inclusion and exclusion rates that are most closely comparable
to the PMT standard statistical "errors," the Non True Poor (NTpoor) from the PMT and SPPs beneficiaries were also
investigated using the third level cross indexing methodology. This additional initiative aims to evaluate the Rate of
Dispersion Gap (RDG) on the poor, NTpoor, and Tpoor within the super-population, sub-population, and samples-
subsamples using cross indexing operations.
At the program level, the top eight programs with the highest error rate are Socpen2016c, Philhealth 2015,
KALAHI 2016 and 2017, Pantawid15, Socpensionlolola, ESGP, and SLP. The
inclusion and exclusion error are negatively correlated, with 3438% of NTPoor at PMT poor, resulting in 62-
66% NTpoor when targeting Tpoor.
This is also consistent with the remaining 11 SPP sample SPP programs, which have NTpoor-
PMT levels ranging from 18 to 30%. The highest programs with high Tpoor and PMT rates are more sensitive to
targeting legitimate recipients of government SPPs, compared to the lowest program in 2016-2017.
Among the 16 SPPs being implemented by National and Local Government Units in the Province of Palawan,
none of these institutions has been able to capture the entire 433 barangays in between or at the same time of program
implementation. Even the most widely (nationwide) implemented program (Pantawid Pamilya, KALAHI CIDSS, UCT,
and Philhealth), averaging only 185 barangays, captured only 431 barangays. The study only captured NTpoor of
444,893 with distribution NTpoor captured beneficiaries of 866 averaging 54 individuals, with a range of 5,596 on the
total PMT identified Poor (total sub-sample - (n) of 685,960.
Page 5 of 49
The Social Protection Programs (SPPs) of Basic Welfare Services (BWS)
The Social Protection Programs (SPPS) of Basic Welfare Services (BWS) of Palawan include the
KALAHI-CIDSS (2016), Educational Support Program (2017), Palawan Women's Federation Program (PAL_CFW)
and other Social Protection Program (SPPS). The KALAHI CIDSS program in 2016 had 229 Barangays out of 433
barangays of Palawan, with a total of 46,908 direct and indirect program "beneficiaries"/community development
partners. The Educational Support Program (Educ_jan2017) had 245 PMT identified poor beneficiaries and 90
identified true poor student recipients, with one (1) to two (2) possible true poor being excluded in the program. The
PAL_CFW program had 2,455 women beneficiaries in its 97 covered barangays with 1,011 true poor women
benefiting in the program, with distributional dispersion of 13 guaranteed true poor women in its maximum 76 true
poor women program recipients. The Social Pension for Older Persons (SOCPEN) and Supplementary Feeding
Program (SFP) in Palawan have identified 4,877 poor older person beneficiaries and 1,246 of which were identified
true poor recipients of SocPen program spread in 332 barangays with four (4) true poor older persons in each covered
area.
The Assistance for Individuals in Crisis Situations (AICS) has 173 true poor individuals in crisis
situations spread in 100 barangays, with 3 true poor program recipients excluded and 333 barangays not covered in
2016 implementation. AICS does not project the rate of individuals in crisis per year, but can be predicted by
prioritization of budget/allocation based on previous disbursed amount, geographical distributions, provincial
poverty rates, NHTSPR-PMT magnitude of poor, Risk Hazard and Vulnerabilities Mapping, Health Hazards (health
state), and Social Protection Development Report (SPDR) Map. The DSWD ESA served 32 true poor family heads
out of 67 prioritized beneficiaries, distributed in 10 barangays of selected municipalities. The statistical figures
revealed based on N suggest that the gap of captured target true poor among the poor beneficiaries of childcare
services is too wide, despite the small sample of poor beneficiaries (21 in 8 barangay project coverage). However,
previous years of program execution in relation to beneficiaries and calculation of composite social protection
programs for basic welfare services can still reinforce the other cumulative number of DCS beneficiaries.
The Educational Support (Student) Grant Program (ESGP) identified 8 PMT identified poor beneficiaries in
two barangays only, resulting in only two true poor who are still in the same barangays. Philippine Health Insurance
(Philhealth) covers 427 of the 433 total barangays, with 6 remaining uninsured. Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino
Program (4Ps) identified 30,122 Tpoor individual household heads from 71,828 program beneficiaries, excluding 8
barangays and 3,186 true poor individual HH heads. The Localized Social Pension Program (Para Kay Lolo At Lola)
of the Provincial Government of Palawan benefited 464 poor beneficiaries in 2016; 113 true poor were identified
upon the start of third level cross indexing procedures; 355 barangays were excluded as project areas by the
PALSOCPEN; and the program's identified true poor ranged from 1 to 5 program recipients. The Unconditional Cash
Transfer Program (UCT) has 400,562 poor beneficiaries, 6,794 (Table 3.0) of whom were identified as true poor and
distributed across 404 implementation barangays. Geographic exclusion, as well as the Tpoor and NTpoor rates of
dispersion, support Cornia and Stewart's (1993) findings on F and E targeting errors.
Upon conducting several procedures to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of NHTSPR at program level,
this study conclude according to its evaluation criteria specifically on the following:
1) How equitable are the distributional properties of the NHTSPR statistical methodology (Proxy Means Test) and the
eligibility criteria of social interventions at the program level? ;
Equitability and Distributional Properties of the NHTSPR at the Program Level

1.1 Statistical Methodology through the Proxy Means Test (PMT)
Page 6 of 49
The NHTSPR PMT having a standard sets of variables and modelling that passed through several statistical tests
to come-up an ideal model for Philippine targeting system still possesses limitations in terms of capturing the poorest of
the poor- Tpoor due to its percentage of inclusion and exclusion error aside from the objectivity of setting such
percentages of standard error, standard validation routine in identifying the Tpoor within the identified segment of poor
identified by PMT, policy development interventions on the mis-identified poor categorized as non-poor. These technical
challenges and gaps by NHTSPR attempted by this study to fill these missing links by conducting two level cross
indexing method to LISTAHANAN 1 and 2 identified poor. It was revealed that for every 1,000,000 PMT identified
poor there will be 40, 677 HHs or 4.07% identified Tpoor. This small percentage of identified Tpoor from the PMT
results connote a significant rate of dispersion gap (RDG) in NHTSPR targeting mechanism. Even it has the ability to
identify poor HHs within the bounds of its standard error it has no capability in deciphering the Tpoor.
The Eligibility Criteria Requirements (ECR) of Social Interventions at the Program level
At the program level, taking Pantawid Pamilya as the sample anti-poverty program the identified Tpoor only
increased 5% (Table 5, Pg 106). Each social welfare/protection intervention has its own eligibility criteria set by its lead
implementing agency through its Technical Advisory Group or Technical Consultant. This study considered 16 Social
Protection Programs, subjected through 3rd level cross indexing, with 1,207,172 identified “poor” beneficiaries (through
ECR), 685, 960 were identified poor by PMT and only 17.45% (210,652 HHs) program beneficiaries and Tpoor as high
priority legitimate recipients with 56.8% (389,626 HHs) program beneficiaries against the PMT poor. This significant
margin of program ECR – PMT poor has resulted to 39.35% RDG which is equivalent to program inclusion error (Tables
5, 6, 7).
The top eight programs with the highest error rate are Socpen2016c, Philhealth 2015, Kalahi2016, KC1 7 2017,
Pantawid15, Socpensionlolola, ESGP, and SLP. The highest programs with high Tpoor rates from PMT and BWS are
more sensitive to targeting legitimate recipients of government SPPs, compared to the lowest one in 2016-2017.
Geographic exclusion, as well as the Tpoor and NTpoor rates of dispersion, support Cornia and Stewart's (1993) findings
on F and E targeting errors.
To further observe the distributional properties of NHTSPR at the program level, the identification of True-poor
from the two (2) cycles of LISTAHANAN and specific social protection programs was clustered to five (5) basic needs
based on program main objectives. Each basic need, such as education (EDUC), income (INC), health (HLTH), shelter
(SHLTR), and food and nutrition (FODNTRN), were examined using a regression analysis The statistical test and
modelling were performed to ensure and substantiate that the variables chosen for predicting the distributive power in
statistical results of NHTSPR through the government's social protection programs are precise and well-targeted
horizontally and vertically. The regression model geographically captured the 431 barangays of Palawan Province with
an average mean of 0.245 and an average standard deviation of 1.3118 on 5 basic welfare services (BWS) on Tpoor of
social protection programs.
Upon initiation of ccorrelations in Aggregated Score Points and Weights of Major and Core Variables, Pearson
Correlation found that BWS at Tpoor is positively correlated with INC (1.000) and SHLTR (0.088), while negatively
correlated with HLTH (-0.015), FODNTRTN (-0.023), and EDUC (-0.017). When SHLTR is used as the key reference
variable, the correlations change dramatically, with EDUC, HLTH (0.042), BWS (0.011), and INC (0.010) all showing
positive correlations. Income is highly correlated with basic services at the Tpoor level, but program architects should
not rely solely on income as input. High prioritization with urgency must be considered in targeting system delivery
mechanisms, programmatic inputs, and delivery system on social welfare and social protection programs identification,
(policy and implementation) design, and type or channel of delivery systems specific or across geographic and sectoral
target (recipients).
Page 7 of 49
The scoring and weight point system were also initiated for SWDI after taking the correlations of aggregated
social welfare interventions. The purpose of this process is to consider the relevance of SWDI in predicting the
distributive power of NHTSPR. It was revealed and conclude that the score points of each SWDI level per municipality
vary according to geographic attributions and income classification, and the percentile share of predicted level of well-
being appears perplexing. The municipalities in question are Aborlan, Agutaya, Cuyo, and Roxas (0.00 Level 1), as well
as those diverse communities (mixed of major Palawan IP and other minor ethnographic denominations). The elements
of SWDI, income classifications, and geographic attributions paint a clear picture of uncertainty or area of further
investigation.
The statistical modelling of Basic Welfare Services (BWS) from Social Protection Program (SPP) at Tpoor.
Models 1-4 were also used to examine the distributional patterns of these BWSs at the beneficiary and poverty levels.
ANOVA was used to cross-validate the stepwise regression figures, as well as the results of excluded variables and
residuals statistics. Each of the chosen BWS variables had a perfect R, R Square R2, and Adjusted R2 of 1.000 with an
average Std. Estimate error of 0.00725 with degree of freedom (df1) of 1.00 for all selected BWS variables. These
figures in the models (M1-M4) show that Income, Health, Education, and Shelter are statistically significant predictors
of distributive powers from NHTSPR and SPP beneficiaries when 3-level cross indexing methodologies are used.
Despite the removal of Food and Nutrition (BWS SPPWeightPoints FODNTRTN) from the model, it is still acceptable
because this variable will be subsumed by Income and Health. This evidence of high correlation in R, simply lead us to
conclude that basic welfare services in these dimensions must be given high preferential attention in initiating social
development interventions.
The study also attempted to translate the Model for Distributive Power to further evaluate the distributional
properties through regression and statistical modelling on policy level, an evaluation across categories of respondents-
community, LGUs and NGAs/CSOs. This methodology explored through Statistical Modelling of Basic Welfare
Services (BWS) from Social Protection Programs (SPP) on Governance Functionality, Social Welfare and Development
Indicators (SWDI) Level 2 by Category of Respondents at Tpoor.
Governance Functionality was calculated using the elements/criteria of (democratic) governance to investigate
the robustness of NHTSPR's predictive distributional power at the program level. F1 - Less-advantaged (LAG) Sector
or Community, F2 - Local Government Units (LGU), and F3 - National Government Agencies and Civil Society
Organizations (CSO). The linear regression statistical test revealed that BWS at Tpoor has a -0.217 correlation with
SWDI-Level 2, while SWDI at Level 2 is negatively correlated at the Tpoor level. When it comes to targeting the Tpoor
in the context of distribution and implementation of basic welfare services, the level of relationships and acceptance of
the community together with their respective Local Government Units and National Government Entities has great
significant effect in governance.
Moreover, governance functionality on participation was chosen as the dominant or ideal variable
(FNCLTYPART03 F2) at F2 in statistical modeling when it comes to governance functionalities across categories of
respondents from 33 questions utilizing the stepwise linear regression methodology (Local Government Units. The study
found out that policy issues in order to ensure that governance continuously functional as exhibited by Model 1 on
governance functionality at F2 imply, that community participation from various sectors of the community is a must in
any policy development, from inception to policy implementation and feedback.
Similarly, in the Model 1 Summary shows that Agency in structural functions has significance as a predictive
variable in computing distributive power in the course of this study at Tpoor of Basic Welfare Services (BWSs). Scatter
plots also show a strong positive linear relationship between the expected and observed probability of BWS at Tpoor in
Page 8 of 49
the STRCTRLAGNCY03 at F2. These suggests that implementing agency and other partner institutions at the local
level are pivotal in social welfare and development policy, system delivery and governance to balance the dynamics of
institutions.
2) How functional is the Philippine National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR) in terms
of program eligibility, beneficiary selection, and program implementation in addressing poverty reduction in terms of
Governance and Structural functionalities: a) Sustainability; b) Efficiency; c) Effectiveness; d) Transparency; e)
Accountability; f) Participation; g) Inclusivity; h) Policy; I Agents; j) Agency?
Functionality of NHTSPR
Governance Functions on Sustainability, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Accountability, Participation, Transparency,
Inclusivity
The exploration of this study’s other alternative governance functions across major socio-political segments,
where the Grassroots Community or LAG (F1), Local Government Units (F2) and NGAs/CSOs (F3) are core
respondents to give us clear picture of institutional dynamics as main and co-collaborators in implementing social
development initiatives.
Sustainability as an additional and independent element of governance function shows a significant role in
ensuring that all elements of governance functionalities are atune and parallel with each other, thus securing the balance
of governance in social development. This conclusive statement on sustainability in governance is a remarkable
development in measuring governance across respondents' categories. Ten sub-variables of justice and welfare rights
are highly correlated to sustainability, with an average p-value of .54994 for Justice (Freedom, Equity, and Equality),
.62021 for Distributive Justice (Precondition, Subject, and Object), and .61552 for Welfare (Welfare as Rights and
Rights to Welfare). The “somewhat” lowest correlation of sustainability for Structural Agency is still considered as high
significance given the (researcher) set p-value of .5000 as a benchmark of correlations.
Likewise, the governance elements of Participation, Transparency and Inclusivity consistently exhibited
extreme p-values under Sustainability, with 85989 and 74126 respectively. These results have proven that sustainability
is an inherent element in all dimension of governance realms. This conclusion is also supportive by the structural
functionality test where structural agencies/institutions show significant pivotal role in social development governance.
The additional characteristics revelation of sustainability in governance, is its power to influence in achieving positive
results across all forms of measurements of governance, whenever sustainability is present. This conclusion suggests
that Sustainabilty Mechanism is a must component in Program Inception, Implementation, Monitoring, Evaluation
System and Program Transfer/localization, an important measure of social development interventions functionality.
(FI) Less Advantage Group (LAG) respondents are agreeable on the effectiveness of implementing mechanisms,
organizational structure management, effectiveness of sound timeframe monitoring, importance of planning and
execution, and effective implementation of support administrative functions by implementing agencies. However having
an average mean on the participation variable (dropped to 2.6049 with SD 0.4737) which means "slightly disagree"
about the project implementers' freedom to consult them prior to policy changes and new policy implementations, based
on the preceeding result of this study that policy and participation have significant effect and impact with the other
elements of governance functions on the basis of basic social welfare and development delivery systems and governance,
the communities (LAG) are acknowledging the Agency’s several strategies employed in program execution but strongly
emphasize the ultimate significance of democratic participation of all stakeholders much more the LAG sectors and
communities.
Page 9 of 49
Transparency is one of the most important and elusive elements of governance, with positive acceptance leaning
towards respect on the importance and integrity of transparency in program implementations however, the respondents
were unaware on the magnitude of poor who received or covered by various anti-poverty programs. Having the
knowledge on the actual coverage of the program in a given locality could give the communities an actual rapid
evaluation on the quality of targeting system, eligibility criteria selection and requirements, processes and procedures of
social development interventions.
On the same group of respondents to serve as verification mechanism for other governance elements. A fair
rating grade (somewhat agree) was given to Transparency and Inclusivity functionalities which means the LAG are open
that targeting mechanism and delivery of social welfare and protection programs by HHs or families as the legitimate
target recipients of a particular program. They also recognize themselves as central and significant catalyst of social
development, rejecting the relevance of social categorization or stratification. The appropriateness of policy for effective
implementation, sufficiency of program budget reflected in the GAA and NEP to cover the legitimate target sector, its
geographical breadth, magnitude of the Tpoor and depth of problems.
The study also identified 37 distinct types of targeting delivery mechanisms (DM) for social protection
programs, of which 10 types are uncommon DM from various anti-poverty programs implemented in the country. This
discovery implies respondents' high familiarity and knowledge on the programs. On the other hand the LAG “somewhat
to strongly disagree" that the DSWD is the sole government agency responsible in the implementation of all social
welfare and development programs. These are in the Project implementers’ institutional level of measurement on
structural functionality.
The Local Government Units (LGU) show lowest acceptability on Efficiency, Effectiveness, Accountability,
Participation, Transparency, and Inclusivity of programs in targeting the project legitimate recipients. It is a surprising
revelation given that the LGUs are the main partners of all implementing agencies in all its social development efforts.
Having lowest acceptability on these elements of governance could simply entail low knowledge and awareness on the
entire processes of social welfare and development interventions in their respective locality. Participation once again,
exhibited the lowest among these governance functions which signify that all anti-poverty programs are non-
participatory in the real sense, specifically on policy development, decisions, and policy changes, contrary to
Transparency, while NGA and CSO groups responded failry on efficiency, showing the internal dynamics of project
implementation when it comes to staffing pattern, system placement, organizational structures, and management.
2,2 Structural Functions
Structural Function -Budget Policy, Agent, Agency
To strengthen the structural functionality of governance functions in the existing governance domain, to
validate and check the accuracy and balance of governance measurement tools in the overall functionality of governance,
especially its impact on social development three functionality measures were added, policy, agency (institution), and
agent (delivery system).
The result is conclusive that structural function when combine with the current governance measure drive as a
reinforcing element of governance in its general sense. Based on the evaluation from the Less Advantaged Group (F1-
LAG), with an average mean score point of 3.71643 which is close to policy on budget with minute deviation on their
SD points connotes that the project implementers' current resources and strategies are somewhat sufficient, effective,
and efficient in delivering services alone or even in collaboration with the other stakeholders.
On Local Government Units (F2-LGU), with an average mean of 3.13197 with almost plus minus (+ -) one
SD indicating "agree to somewhat disagree" when it comes to sound monitoring and auditing as observed by the project
Page 10 of 49
implementers of various social protection programs. However, they have reservations about the appropriateness of
policy, value of pesos per output per head, percentage of allocation on administrative assistance, and geographical
coverage. The Structural Function-Agents got the lowest mean and SD, indicating that they are not convinced that project
implementers are knowledgeable about organizational systems, mechanisms, and procedures for delivering social
welfare and development programs. This contradicting result from the LGU upon introduction of structural function has
clearly demonstrate and proven the validation and checking abilities of this additional function along with the study
design and psychology of the questions.
The NGAs, and CSOs, observed that they are "strongly disagree" on budget sufficiency based on GAA, to
cover the target sector, geographical breadth and depth of problems.
Given the remarkable results, the study concludes that utilizing the structural function in current governance
measure can further strengthened the overall governance measurement tools, thus give us a factual and real sense of the
quality of implementation of any anti-poverty programs, degree of acceptability and knowledge on the program of
collaborating agencies (ownership), plus the integrity of the Monitoring and Evaluation System in capturing essential
elements of the program based on report. In the context of this study on governance and structural functionalities, the
NHTSPR has exhibited various limitations and gaps especially when it applies to program level in identifying core
recipients- the Tpoor, as high priority target in addressing poverty reduction and alleviation.
The 3rd level of evaluation tests is calculating the distributive power of NHTSPR through Regression
Correlation and Dispersion or rate of dispersion gap (RDG) of the governments’ social welfare and social protection
programs after passing through the 1st (PMT Cross Indexing) and 2nd (Programmatic -ECR) levels of evaluation.
Taking Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program (4Ps) as variable sample (pantawid12 2021) its positive
correlation with Tpoor, Pantawid 2015 Database (.777*;.914**) variable and SWDI Level 1 and 2 (.322**;.108*) at a
2-tailed test have given us “green light” of relevant significant results in deciphering RDG to predict the distributive
power of NHTSPR at programmatic level.
To establish the high correlations of major to core variables, Pantawid Pamilya, and SWDI, these variables
reveal high and remarkable correlation with Governance Functionality and Structural Functions, Distributive Justice,
and Governance structural functionalities at the F1 category of respondents. However, SWDI Level 3, Sustainability,
Justice, Program Delivery Mechanisms, and Welfare Rights are all negatively correlated. Tpoor identification is highly
favorable to Pantawid and SWDI across levels of well-being where Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Nevertheless, due to the magnitude of identified true poor (Tpoor) and the danger of vertical and horizontal
(resource) inputs from the government and other stakeholders involved in institutional targeting and political welfare,
the overall evaluation is quite challenging and unfavorable for institutional and political spheres, it also affects the status
quo or current system of program mode and delivery systems, and social welfare governance and development programs
in the province of Palawan, MIMAROPA and the country as a whole.
Capturing the concept of Distributive Power of BWS from aggregated 16 SPP is the final test on how these
initiated programs were distributed equitably, fairly and just. Thus distributive justice and welfare and rights
measurements, were introduced.
The presence of strong p-value correlation of Freedom, Equity, and Equality, to Justice, substantiated this
element in social development through BWS is achievable. This conclusion also supports the strong correlation of ECR
delivery mechanism to justice, remarkably on equity and equality as the Structural Policy, Agent, Agency respect
freedom of less-advantaged group (LAG-F1- see governance functions results (pg. 178) and correlations in aggregated
score points and weights (ASPWP) of sub and major variables or the grassroots community even the LGUs-F2 positions
in the midpoint of social welfare delivery governance based on indicators of current governance system. The consistent
Page 11 of 49
highest p-value of structural functions to governance functionality (FN) as shown by the strong correlations of all 23
sub variables to each single or clustered sub-variables, indicate the strong reinforcing effect of structural functionality
that can fortify improvement of current democratic governance indicators. The setting of average p-value of.5999 as
high to highest variable correlations guaranteed high predictability of the distributive power model.
Among 23 sub and major variables the remarkable p-value correlation in its aggregated score points across
categories of respondents from the preceding results show high significance. The application of Weights to aggregated
score points, single or clustered variables, high variable-correlation reliability increased rapidly and demonstrated
significant degree of associations especially on Sustainability, Justice (Freedom, Equity, and Equality), Distributive
Justice (Precondition, Subject, and Object), and .61552 Welfare (Welfare as Rights and Rights to Welfare), as an
example, on Equality variable posted the highest correlation among the three (3) sub-variables of Justice, followed by
Welfare (.76777), Governance Functionality (.69805), Targeting Delivery Mechanism (.64011), Justice (.61966- 2 sub
variables), Distributive Justice (.57627), and Structural Functions (.55560). The order of correlation in these clusters of
sub and major variable correlation is surprising, but the significance, logic, and importance of 1) justice and freedom
above all in the context of 2) welfare as rights and citizens' rights to welfare are justified; 3) Governance functionality
comes third in the sequence; 4) the significance of objectively selecting the targeting system and delivery mechanisms
for every social protection program is a matter of science (and wisdom of philosophy). 5) Distributive justice
(distribution and redistribution) trailed delivery mechanisms with a p-value of.57627, followed by 6) structural functions
as a consolidation of all major variables on Policy (cohesive system), Agents (Delivery systems), and Agency
(Institutional system). The composite variables have high p-values, indicating the true picture and ideal scenario for
delivering social welfare and services. The sub-variable of Sustainability has shown a strong correlation with this sub-
variable, putting it on the sixth spot and moving the structural functions to sequence seven (7).
This pattern of correlations indicates cause and effect (or dependency) of these sub and major variables with
each other in the context of distributive justice, justice, and distributive power, this is based on predicted value.
Moreover, each sub-variable of a given major variable exhibited high correlations as reference (predictor dependent or
independent variables), the absence of one is the presence of single or clustered co-sub variables. Policy intervention is
the usual culprit of deviations, institutional adjustments/ arrangements, elite capture, and massive leakage of resources,
referred here as corruption of structures and systems. This conclusion on policy intervention issues, supports the study
of Sen, A, (2000), The World Bank (2007; Subbarao K (1998); Alatas V., et al, (2013); Jacoby H. (1999); Ahmed, A.,
and K. Billah (1994); Braithwaite J., Grootaert C., and Milanovic B.; (2000); UNESCAP (2001).
The Philippines’ high dynamism as heterogeneous society point-out that the agency heading to Institutional
targeting across categories of respondent’s for Agency (LAG, LGUs, and NGAs CSOs), Indicates careful identification
and selection of specific (statistical and SPP type) targeting delivery mechanisms. The Statistical Targeting Delivery
Mechanism and Eligibility Criteria Requirements (ECR), Social Protection Programs, and Welfare have also shown
highest correlation among 23 individual or clustered sub and major variables (p- value .78624 - .99719). These p-values
strongly support the conclusion that delivering all types of social welfare and development programs and services for
the poor, vulnerable and marginalized sectors compels to develop an ideal formula with high power variables
predictability (nearly perfect correlations) in addition off functional governance in our current (conventional)
governance elements of measurement. This high significance- variable correlations were also demonstrated on the result
of linear regression modelling supporting high predictive capability of the final model.
The Distributive Power of NHTSPR
On Distributed Power exploration on Policy the researcher used the Mean standard of 1,181 study sample area.
Page 12 of 49
The seemingly remarkable and extreme error of Distributed Power score is consistent at F2 category on the
Less-Advantaged Group (F1) for more than 150% to 200% rate exceeding the Normal regression log of 1.0 is supporting
the consistency of results from four (4) Distributive power formulae. Nevertheless, this result has proven the robustness
of the statistical model and high reliability of variables even in Policy dimension of BWS system delivery across
institutional structural arrangements. The result suggests that Policy is highly sensitive to LAG more than double the
impact to captured sectors of the community compare to Local Government Units and National Government Agencies
and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). In the context of poverty reduction efforts and basic welfare system delivery,
the Distributive power score (at NTpoor) that possesses higher than the expected perfect score emanates unfavorable
impact to the LAG (F1) (2.33708251), as it further decreasing towards a particular Agency receive lesser impact, which
is positive directly correlated with the Tpoor through its Rate of Dispersion Gap (RDG) or Distributive Power score
distant from the NLog perfect 1.0.
On SWDI Level of Well Being at Tpoor and NTpoor the results are the same favourable and unfavourable to
Agency as the Distributive Power is increasing or decreasing (+ -), thus it can double or square the negative impact to
the poor or poorest of the poor. In this (current) situation of Philippine Government shift of transactional and contextual
definition of Social Welfare to social protection as the former subsumed by social protection, signals an imbalance of
welfare in rights state, vis a-vis, thus farther away to social welfare realm.
These configuration of results are also supporting the Difference of interval or Di (Upper and Lower bound) at
95% rates established in Formula 4 that signify inverse proportionality to its normal distributive power score of the
standard mean and error of proportionality.
III. Conclusion
The Final Predicted Distributive Power of NHTSPR at Program Level across categories of respondents-LGUs
(F2); NGAS/CSOs (F3), according to the Level of Wellbeing, at Five (5) different Formulae employing Tpoor and
NTpoor populations consistently show the performance of SWDI’s weaknesses and unreliability as a single gauge (or
even alternate tool for Listahanan in 3 year gap prior to regular nationwide assessment) of well-being as well as basis of
achievements and program impact for the program recipients of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), and other
social welfare and social protection programs. This conclusion is shown by several statistical tests focused on
information system, program targeting, social welfare and social protection governance with the aid of structural
functionalities. At the Agency level both by the Local and National Government agencies as implementing institutions
through the RDG, even by predicting it using the PMT Poor and Non-Poor.
The Distributive Power score are remarkable at F2 category of respondents in SWDI Level 2 of well-being this
is due to the Inconsistency of results that in some cases exhibiting outliers, multiple visibility of errors (duplication of
results). In addition, if the basis of populations (subsample of study area, sub-population of Tpoor NTPoor, PMT poor
and Non poor) in targeting the poor is only by program ECR, the remarkable leakage of such targeting mechanism is
intolerable. Thus, identifying the Tpoor within the population of PMT and ECR, by calculating the rate of distributional
gap at NTpoor and Distributive power at Tpoor can give us more sound and functional targeting distributional properties
mechanism favourable for the Poor based on the recipients’ rights and justice as well as economical (all input capital)
for the government and other stakeholders.
Further, the SPP delivery systems or the social welfare governance of the country thru their regional and local
implementations are weak thus unfunctional in terms of sustainability, efficiency, effectivity, transparency, participation,
equity, equality and inclusivity, although this varies on some degrees in terms of ownership and agency implementations
Page 13 of 49
especially the presence of CSOs (at the national level with program interventions in the rural community) serves as
check and balance. The addition of sustainability and inclusivity elements in governance indicators strengthened its
current indicators of performance, thus substantiating the failure of all stakeholders in social welfare and development
governance. It was also revealed that careful selection of study area (research) or complexity of geo-political capture
(program) is an initial indicator of success with respect to the quality of governance, as proven by this study supporting
E.Jarabejo (2012) on Environmental Governance and Human Development Index.
Without considering the structural intricacy of governance measurement, limits its systems capability to move
deeper beyond the status quo, the power of structural functions in predicting Distributive Power reinforcing the
capability of governance structural functionality in social welfare and social protection and development delivery
systems as established by various statistical tests and modelling methodologies strengthened the weaknesses of elements
of equity and equality, transparency and participation on Policy and Justice in program implementation and resource
allocation and redistribution.
The mass of 80% population is the most significant and reliable capture reference population (lens). The Less
Advantaged Groups (LAG) of poor, marginalized, vulnerable and disadvantaged (sectors in three politico-cultural and
geographic area) living in the coastal areas, agricultural villages (upland/inland), and Indigenous People communities
as an established and distinct sector as raison d’ etre of all social development initiatives in evaluating the overall picture
(impact) of the Government’s social welfare governance and national social development measures of their several anti-
poverty programs.
The consistent Distributive Power (𝐷 ∈) through its (5) developed formulae calculations from the three (3) level
cross indexing methodologies for LISTAHANAN 1 & 2 as PMT programmatic validation, the identification of Tpoor,
dispersion and error rate of PMT at Poor and Non Poor, Tpoor and NTpoor per social welfare interventions by its core
objective to five (5) basic Welfare Services (BWS) further revealed distinct picture of quality, magnitude and depth of
the problems of disenfranchisement of the poor in targeting system in addressing multi-faceted poverty issues. The
consistent strong correlations all variables (paired or independent) signify strong relationships and high predicted power
capability thus further strengthened the core variables formula as confirmed by the robustmess of statistical modelling
and testing, supporting the study’s research paradigm which is a favourable response to perennial and recurring gaps,
overlaps, resources un-sound (re)distribution and management, purposive targeting system and delivery mechanisms,
policy issues, leakage and political welfare and targeting the Tpoor as core, legitimate and high priority community
development partners and recipients of all social development efforts.
As a response mechanism, this study developed the Philippines Social Development and Governance
Framework- to further strengthen the country’s social welfare and development governance as the core foundational
element of social development and social justice (for the poor, marginalized and disadvantaged), addressing various
gaps and overlaps of program implementation through its statistical and program targeting delivery system to enhance
the NHTSPR identification of poor at the program level addressing the perennial mis-targeting and disenfranchisement
(resulting to ballooning percentage of chronic-Tpoor who are invisible as urgent and high priority end-up neglected and
victims) of all government social development initiatives ,widening inequality, elite capture, “political welfare”, gaps
on program policy development interventions, removal of leakage of all government related resources intended for the
target legitimate poor as community development partners.
As a result of this study, the major implication of the Framework is redefining the Philippine Systems of Governance
(e.g. Structural Governance) in the context of social welfare and development programs and services (SWDPP) from its
inceptions and delivery systems both at the local and national levels that has major impact on ASEAN (Pillars of
Integration) align with the international index and measurements of governance.
Page 14 of 49
IV. Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on this study that has local and national implications to social
development. Recommendations are focused on Governance and Social Welfare and Social Protection, subdivided into
three thematic sections for specific recommendations: 1) Policy Development, 2) Institutional Reform and 3) Delivery
System of Social Welfare and Social Protection Programs.
1) General Recommendations
a. Governance
i. Governance Reform through Governance Structural Functionalities for inclusive governance.
ii. Focus on Sustainability and Inclusivity elements;
iii. Consider Structural functionality in Evaluation System;
iv. Program Policy impact Evaluation (mid and post)
v. Delivery System
vi. Institutional Arrangements
vii. National Targeting System
1. Statistical
2. ECR (1 & 2)
3. Information Technology System
b. Strengthening of Social Welfare and Social Protection Governance

i. (NGAs and LGUs)
ii. Frontline Services
iii. Support System
iv. Institutional mandate
c. National and International Networking and Advocacy (Regional Level)

d. Local Integration
e. National Integration
f. International Regional Integration
c. Social Welfare and Social Protection

i. Address the issue of distributional rate of dispersion gap (RDG) of every type of SPP through
mandatory Distributive Power calculation. As initial step of institutionalization starting to major
government 16 anti-poverty program frontline services subjected in this study (ex. Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program, Philhealth, UCT, etc).
ii. Evaluate the pros and cons of inclusion and exclusion error of statistical targeting system, while
avoiding the political agenda/biased.
iii. Institutionalization of the Social Development Framework Accordingly (LGU and National
level).
iv. Focus targeting system and delivery system for the True poor as high priority
v. Target of all government’s program intervention by geo-political/GIDAs, and income
classification.
Page 15 of 49
vi. Reconsider the implementation of SG2 accounting strategy.
vii. Stretching the vertical and horizontal anti-poverty program implementation reach/coverage to
avoid F and E errors.
viii. Implement gender and humane terminologies and vocabulary in all program language to avoid
confusion and (conceptual and contextual) mis-interpretation.
ix.
2. Specific Recommendations
a. Policy Development
i. Policy on VAT exemptions for the poor, marginalized, dis-advantaged sectors (on basic social
welfare services).
ii. Refinement of definition of social protection and social welfare and development based on State’s
Agenda of Social Development
iii. Vertical and Horizontal (re)distribution
iv. Legal and Occupational Welfare for informal sectors and all segments of poor within and below
the poverty line, at least 10% above and below for the “near poor”.
v. Strengthen the monitoring system on Progress Reporting of individual social welfare and social
protection program recipients (Report Card/Case Management SWDI (ex. Dr Laygo’s Report
Card Indicator)
vi. Harmonization of CBMS and NHTSPR capturing two systems of Statistical Targeting System in
the country while considering other targeting system for the program level.
vii. Amendment of Law on delivery system of Social Pension program, Differently-abled Persons
(PWD) from mixed-targeting to “pure” categorical targeting system.
viii. Development and Institutionalization of True-poor and Near Poor policy in the country for
purposive targeting system.
ix. Supplementary Feeding Closed Monitoring especially on actual procurement and actual feeding
according to standard required nutritional dietary allowance/ caloric/ intake.
x. Alignment of similar researches that focused on poverty issues to environmental governance and
human development measurements particularly on communities in protected areas.
xi. Conduct similar or related research on distributive justice, chronic poor, and poverty segmentation
measurements.
b. Institutional Reform
i. Institutional Structuralization of Disaster Risk and Vulnerability, Reduction, Rehabilitation and
Management on Disaster Management targeting delivery mechanism (social protection
framework overlaps with social policy, economic, and disaster reduction, (not as a stand-alone
policy but integrated).
ii. Indigenous People Sectoral Reform based on IPRA and International Covenants.
iii. Review and Evaluation/Strengthening of Human Development National Indicators.
iv. Institutional Strengthening of Philippine Statistical System through PSA (ex, Offices
Implementing CBMS Law, Magna Carta of The Poor, NHTSPR and other Related laws and
Institutions like DSWD)
v. MDC/PDC/RDC institutional role at SDC level on alignment of direction and target
harmonization based on Integrated Development Plans (IDP) Annual Investments Planning and
Programming (AIPP), to ex. Ambisyon 2040 measurement is on individual impact from micro,
meso to macro level.
Page 16 of 49
vi. Strengthen attached agency of DSWD like NAPC, Commission on Senior Citizens, Commission
on Women and Children, as relevant institution for hunger mitigation and poverty reduction.
vii. Development of Social Welfare and Social Protection Referral System for PIMES and Knowledge
Management.
viii. Fiscal Management and Incentivization, on Budget Allocation, Implementation and
Accountability.
c. Delivery System of Social Welfare and Social Protection Program.

i. Tax Incentivization through Tax structuralization for the poor through BWS as big consumer of
basic commodities and contributor on taxation.
ii. Development of Basic Social Welfare Referral System, (take the lessons of Health Referral System
from Brgy to National Level.)
iii. Focus category and type of delivery mechanism for humanitarian-disaster assistance to reduce
leakage and efficiency of delivery.
Page 17 of 49
ANNEXES
B. STATISTICAL TABLES
Table 1.0 TRUE POOR (Tpoor), PALAWAN PROVINCE ,BASIC WELFARE SERVICES –BWS
(Social Protection Programs), Based -Year 2015-2017
GEOGRAPHIC
POPULATION DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS[i]
BASIC DISTRIBUTION
WELFARE Standard Rate of
Averaged Highe
No SERVICES – TOTAL TOTAL Error of Distribu Dispersion Excluded Horizonta
True Captured Lowest st
. BWS (Social YEA (N) (n) Captur Exclusio Captured tion rate Gap Tpoor Tpoor l
Poor True bound of boun
Protection R subpopula subsampl ed n True of Tpoor and SPPs (Exclusio magnitud
(Tpoor) Poor Tpoor d of
Programs) tion e Poor (%) Beneficiari n) e of Tpoor
(Tpoor) Tpoor
(Tpoor) es (%)
1 Kalahi2016 2016 133,181 46,908 17,753 229 204 78 4 62 13 3,831 356 1 357
2 Educ_jan2017 2016 697 245 90 58 375 2 1 1 13 1 6 1 7
3 KC1_7_2017 2017 193,503 58,538 22,043 272 161 81 4 65 11 4,276 356 1 357
4 Pal_cfw 2016 3,820 2,455 1,011 97 336 11 1 13 26 159 75 1 76
5 SLP_2016 2016 27,573 10,328 4,726 239 194 20 2 27 17 725 162 1 163
6 Socpen2016c 2016 16,904 4,877 1,246 332 101 4 1 3 07 9 20 1 21
7 Sfp2016 2016 15,631 4,630 2,568 196 237 14 1 10 16 93 51 1 52
8 AICs2016b 2016 1,063 464 173 100 333 2 1 2 16 3 10 1 11
9 ESA2016 2016 76 67 32 10 423 4 1 2 42 4 5 1 6
10 Daycare 2016 21 21 11 8 425 2 1 1 .52 1 2 1 3
11 ESGP 2016 8 8 2 2 431 1 - - 25 - 0 1 1
12 Philhealth_2015 2015 216,228 83,747 32,681 427 6 77 3 62 15 3,889 348 1 349
13 Pantawid15 2015 180,183 71,828 30,122 425 8 71 3 56 17 3,187 303 1 304
14 Socpensionlolola 2016 16,904 464 113 78 355 2 1 1 01 1 4 1 5
15 Pal_kalingap 2016 818 818 320 138 295 3 1 2 39 3 10 1 11
16 UCT (2016) 2016 400,562 400,562 6,794 404 29 17 1 16 02 246 128 1 129
Ave.TOTAL 75,448 42,873 7,480 188 245 24 1 20 20 1,027 115 1 116
GRAND
1,207,172 685,960 119,685 3,015 3,913 382 20 322 314 16,428 1,836 16 1,852
TOTAL
The Distributive Power of The Philippine National Household Targeting System For Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR): Implications For National Social Development/
Philippine School of Social Work (PSSW) Philippine Women’s University, Manila and Department of Social Welfare and Development –MIMAROPA Region,
Philippines, By Ernie H. Jarabejo, March 2023
Page 18 of 49
Table 4.0 NON-TRUE POOR (NTPOOR) PALAWAN PROVINCE ,BASIC WELFARE SERVICES –BWS
(Social Protection Programs), Based-Year 2015-2017
BASIC
WELFARE POPULATION GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMSi
SERVICES – DISTRIBUTION
BWS (Social TOTAL Averaged Standard Distribution Included Horizonta Lowest Highest
Protection YEAR (N) TOTAL (n) Non True Captured Not Captured Error of rate of True l numbe number
Programs) subpopu subsample -Poor (Inclusion) Captured NTpoor Captured Captured Poor magnitude r of of
lation (NTpoor) (Exclusion) Beneficia NTpoor NTpoor (Tpoor) of NTpoor NTpoo NTpoor
ries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries r
1 Kalahi2016 2016 133,181 46,908 10,265 229 204 45 3 33 1,043 208 1 209
2 Educ_jan2017 2016 697 245 93 64 369 5 1 1 1 5 1 6
3 KC1_7_2017 2017 193,503 58,538 12,809 273 160 50 3 37 1,341 278 1 279
4 Pal_cfw 2016 3,820 2,455 636 87 346 8 1 9 77 46 1 47
5 SLP_2016 2016 27,573 10,328 2,020 225 208 9 1 11 112 53 1 54
6 Socpen2016c 2016 16,904 4,877 1,398 329 104 5 1 4 12 22 1 23
7 Sfp2016 2016 15,631 4,630 816 173 260 5 1 5 18 35 1 36
8 AICs2016b 2016 1,063 464 157 82 351 2 1 2 4 9 1 10
9 ESA2016 2016 76 67 18 8 425 3 1 2 4 4 1 5
10 Daycare 2016 21 21 6 5 428 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
11 ESGP 2016 8 8 3 3 430 1 1 - - - 1 1
12 Philhealth_2015 2015 216,228 83,747 16,025 424 9 38 2 34 1127 264 1 265
13 Pantawid15 2015 180,183 71,828 13,647 423 10 33 2 28 764 209 1 210
14 ocpensionlolola 2016 16,904 464 172 86 347 2 1 2 4 10 1 11
15 Pal_kalingap 2016 818 818 250 124 309 2 1 2 4 7 1 8
16 UCT (2016) 2016 400,562 400,562 386,578 431 2 897 34 701 491,205 5,245 6 5,251
Ave TOTAL 75,448 42,873 27,806 185 248 68 3 54 30,982 400 1 401
GRAND TOTAL 1,207,172 685,960 444,893 433 433 1,096 45 866 495,708 6,396 21 6,417
Page 19 of 49
Table 3.0 INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION RATE OF TRUE POOR (Tpoor) AND NON-TRUE POOR (NTpoor) of BASIC WELFARE SERVICES –
BWS PALAWAN PROVINCE, Social Protection Programs, Based-Year 2015-2017
ERROR BASIC
RATE
NON TRUE - POSSIBLE RATE OF WELFARE
SOCIAL TRUE RATE OF OF SCORE
POOR PMT PMT PMT POOR SERVICES
PROTECTION YEAR POOR Tpoor/PM NTpoor/ WEIGHT
(NTpoor) ERROR POOR @ VARIABLE
PROGRAMS (Tpoor) T POOR PMT POINTS
(Inclusion) (Exclusion) PROGRAM CODE
POOR
LEVEL CATEGORY
1 UCT 2016 352,991 187,476 27,632 512,835 68.83% 36.56% 5.39% Income 0.75
2 Educ_jan2017 2016 87 92 66 245 35.51% 37.55% 26.94% Education 0.50
3 KC1_7_2017 2016 22,200 13,018 23,320 58,538 37.92% 22.24% 39.84% Income 0.50
4 Kalahi2016 2016 17,753 10,265 18,890 46,908 37.85% 21.88% 40.27% Income 0.50
5 Pal_cfw 2016 1,011 636 808 2,455 41.18% 25.91% 32.91% Income 0.50
6 SLP_2016 2016 4,726 2,020 3,582 10,328 45.76% 19.56% 34.68% Income 0.50
7 Socpen2016c 2016 1,246 1,398 2,233 4,877 25.55% 28.67% 45.79% Income 0.50
8 Sfp2016 2016 2,568 816 1,246 4,630 55.46% 17.62% 26.91% Food and Nutrition 0.75
9 AICs2016b 2016 173 157 134 464 37.28% 33.84% 28.88% Income 0.50
10 ESA2016 2016 32 18 17 67 47.76% 26.87% 25.37% Housing/Shelter 0.50
11 Daycare 2016 11 6 4 21 52.38% 28.57% 19.05% Education 1.00
12 ESGP 2016 2 3 3 8 25.00% 37.50% 37.50% Education 0.25
13 Philhealth_2015 2015 32,681 16,025 35,041 83,747 39.02% 19.14% 41.84% Health 0.50
14 Pantawid15 2015 30,122 13,647 28,059 71,828 41.94% 19.00% 39.06% Education 0.50
15 Socpensionlolola 2016 113 172 179 464 24.35% 37.07% 38.58% Income 0.25
16 Pal_kalingap 2016 320 247 251 818 39.12% 30.20% 30.68% Health 0.50
TOTAL 466,210 626,764 218,094 1,311,068 38.53% 30.38% 31.10% 0.559
Page 20 of 49
Table 4. PALAWAN PROVINCE PERCENTILE SHARE
Of Social Welfare and Development Indicators SWDI 2019-2022)) (09/08/22
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Municipality
PALAWAN
1 ABORLAN 0.00% 54.12% 8.05%
2 AGUTAYA 0.00% 55.31% 7.59%
3 ARACELI 0.53% 64.23% 0.18%
4 BALABAC 5.10% 54.46% 0.00%
5 BATARAZA 2.18% 61.39% 3.33%
6 BROOKE'S POINT 0.74% 66.61% 3.07%
7 BUSUANGA 0.56% 63.66% 0.34%
8 CAGAYANCILLO 0.46% 64.06% 0.00%
9 CORON 0.24% 54.25% 5.83%
10 CULION 1.17% 61.31% 1.17%
11 CUYO 0.00% 63.22% 4.03%
12 DUMARAN 0.58% 55.89% 3.97%
13 EL NIDO (BACUIT) 0.63% 50.94% 3.62%
14 LINAPACAN 0.18% 64.96% 0.88%
15 MAGSAYSAY 0.27% 70.41% 2.19%
16 NARRA 0.11% 46.37% 2.53%
17 PUERTO PRINCESA CITY (Capital) 0.08% 55.64% 5.94%
18 QUEZON 0.52% 65.97% 4.46%
19 RIZAL (MARCOS) 2.68% 72.28% 3.50%
20 ROXAS 0.00% 53.33% 11.67%
21 SAN VICENTE 0.25% 59.07% 5.04%
22 SOFRONIO ESPAÑOLA 0.75% 69.50% 3.92%
23 TAYTAY 0.82% 63.39% 2.58%
Grand Total 0.69% 59.70% 4.32%
Page 21 of 49
Table 5.0. Municipal Level SWDI Score and Weights Points by Level of Well-Being
Predicting the Distributive Power (Source: Year 2019-2022)
SWDSC SWDSC SWDSC SWDSC SWDWEI SWDWEI SWDWEI SWDWEI

CITY_MUNICIPALITY GEOGRAPHIC INCOME OREPO OREPO OREPO OREPO GHTPOIN GHTPOIN GHTPOIN GHTPOIN
ATTRIBUTIO CLASSIFICATI INTS_L INTS_L INTS_L INTS_N TS_LEVE TS_LEVE TS_LEVE TS_NATT
N ON EVEL1 EVEL2 EVEL3 ATT L1 L2 L3
ABORLAN Mainland 1st Class 0.00 179.40 53.40 238.80 - 35.88 10.68 47.76
th
AGUTAYA Island 5 Class 0.00 76.50 21.00 96.00 - 15.30 4.20 19.20
th
ARACELI Island 4 Class 0.30 108.30 0.60 100.20 0.06 21.66 0.12 20.04
BALABAC Island 2nd Class 1.60 51.30 ! 70.20 0.32 10.26 14.04
st
BATARAZA Mainland 1 Class 4.40 371.10 40.20 321.60 0.88 74.22 8.04 64.32
ST
BROOKE'S POINT Mainland 1 Class 1.40 377.10 34.80 298.80 0.28 75.42 6.96 59.76
rd
BUSUANGA Island 3 Class 0.50 169.20 1.80 160.20 0.10 33.84 0.36 32.04
CAGAYANCILLO Island 6th Class 0.10 41.70 39.60 0.02 8.34 7.92
ST
CORON Island 1 Class 0.20 134.10 28.80 175.20 0.04 26.82 5.76 35.04
rd
CULION Island 3 Class 0.50 78.90 3.00 69.60 0.10 15.78 0.60 13.92
th
CUYO Island 4 Class 0.00 75.30 9.60 71.40 - 15.06 1.92 14.28
DUMARAN Island 3rd Class 0.50 143.70 20.40 168.00 0.10 28.74 4.08 33.60
ST
EL NIDO (BACUIT) Mainland 1 Class 0.80 194.10 27.60 281.40 0.16 38.82 5.52 56.28
th
KALAYAAN Island 5 Class 0.00
th
LINAPACAN Island 5 Class 0.10 110.10 3.00 103.20 0.02 22.02 0.60 20.64
MAGSAYSAY Island 5th Class 0.10 77.10 4.80 55.80 0.02 15.42 0.96 11.16
ST
NARRA Mainland 1 Class 0.20 264.30 28.80 355.80 0.04 52.86 5.76 71.16
PUERTO PRINCESA CITY Mainland HUC 0.30 606.60 129.60 663.60 0.06 121.32 25.92 132.72
(CAPITAL)
QUEZON Mainland 1ST Class 0.90 341.40 46.20 262.80 0.18 68.28 9.24 52.56
RIZAL (MARCOS) Mainland 1st Class 3.60 291.00 28.20 127.80 0.72 58.20 5.64 25.56
ST
ROXAS Mainland 1 Class 0.00 300.30 131.40 355.80 - 60.06 26.28 71.16
ST
SAN VICENTE Mainland 1 Class 0.20 140.70 24.00 145.20 0.04 28.14 4.80 29.04
nd
SOFRONIO ESPAÑOLA Mainland 2 Class 0.90 250.20 28.20 127.20 0.18 50.04 5.64 25.44
TAYTAY Mainland 1ST Class 2.10 487.20 39.60 438.60 0.42 97.44 7.92 87.72
The Distributive Power of The Philippine National Household Targeting System For Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR): Implications For National Social Development/ Philippine
School of Social Work (PSSW) Philippine Women’s University, Manila and Department of Social Welfare and Development –MIMAROPA Region, Philippines, By Ernie H.
Jarabejo, March 2023
Page 22 of 49
TABLE 6.0 Summary of Result on Variable Regression Modelling
REGRESSION RESULTS OF STATISTICAL MODELLING AT SELECTED VARIABLES OF DISTRIBUTIVE POWER AS PREDICTORS
R R² Adjusted R² R² Changed
Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model
VARIABLE I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV
BWS_SPP 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000
FNCLTYPART03_F2 0.744 0.554 0.530 0.554
STRCTRLAGNCY03_F2 0.726 0.527 0.502 0.527
FNGS 0.456 0.208 0.123 0.208
FNGS_ CATRESP 0.113
DJ 0.547 0.284 0.008 0.010
FN 0.822 0.854 0.869 0.676 0.730 0.754 0.676 0.730 0.754 0.676 0.054 0.024
DM 0.87 0.89 0.911
Legend : BWS_SPP - Basic Welfare Services Social Protection Programs / FNCLTYPART03_F2 – Participation Functionality at Local
Government Units
STRCTRLAGNCY03_F2 – Structural Agency at Local Government Units/ FNGS - Governance Structural Functionality
FNGS_ CATRESP - Governance Structural Functionality by Category of Resp. DJ -Distributive Justice
FN - Governance Functionality DM - Program Delivery Mechanism
The Distributive Power of The Philippine National Household Targeting System For Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR): Implications For National Social Development/ Philippine
School of Social Work (PSSW) Philippine Women’s University, Manila and Department of Social Welfare and Development –MIMAROPA Region, Philippines, By Ernie H.
Jarabejo, March 2023
Page 23 of 49
C. FORMULA EXTRAPOLATION
Formula 1-(F1)
Distributive Power of Status Quo.
{(𝑭𝒏) + (𝑫𝒋) + (𝑩𝑾𝒔)}

D∈= (_________________________________________ )
(𝑵)
Table 24, Predicted Distributive Power of NHTSPR at Program Level by Category of Respondents at
1st Formula- Distributive Power of Status Quo, True Poor (Tpoor) and NTpoor and PMT Poor
Populations
F1 Category of Respondents
Formula Identification LAG
Tpoor NTpoor Difference
0.00011739 0.001685482 0.001568093
F1 Distributive Power of Status Quo,
0.000338885 0.014173956 0.01383507
0.00066665 0.021017004 0.020350354
Formula – 2 (F2)
Distributive Power of Social Welfare Protection Programs
{ (𝑭𝒏) + (𝑫𝒋) + (𝑩𝑾𝒔) + (𝑺𝑾𝑫𝑰)}

D∈= (______________________________________________________________ )
(𝑵)
Table 25, Predicted Distributive Power of NHTSPR at Program Level by Category of Respondents by SWDI
Level 2 of Well Being at 2nd Formula- Distributive Power of Social Welfare Protection Programs, True-Poor
(Tpoor) Populations
Category of Respondents/
Formula Identification Level of Wellbeing
F1 L2 F2 L2 F3 L2 SWDI
SWDI SWDI
0.02180 0.01417 0.00228
F2 Distributive Power of Social Welfare Protection Programs 2.32116 1.50922 0.24227
0.04981 1.51362 0.24297
Page 24 of 49
Formula -3 (F3)
Distributive Power of Social Welfare and Development II
{(𝑩𝑾𝒔) + (𝑺𝑾𝑫𝑰) (𝑭𝒏) + (𝑺𝑭) + (𝑫𝒋)}

𝑫 ∈ = (_____________________________________________________________________)
(𝑵)
Table 26, Predicted Distributive Power of NHTSPR at Program Level by Category of Respondents by
SWDI Level 3 of Well Being 3rd Formula- Distributive Power of Social Welfare and Development,
True-Poor (TPoor) Populations
F1 L3 F2 L3 F3 L3 SWDI
SWDI SWDI
0.01615 0.01050 0.00169

0.35042 0.22784 0.03657
F3 Distributive Power of Social Welfare and Development
0.35001 0.22758 0.03653
Formula – 4 (F4)
The Distributive Power of Distributive Social Welfare and Development
{ (𝑭𝒏𝑮𝑺) + (𝑫𝒋) + (𝑩𝑾𝒔)}

𝑫 ∈ = (_____________________________________________)
(𝑵)
Table 27, Predicted Distributive Power of NHTSPR at Program Level by Category of Respondents at 4th
Formula- The Distributive Power of Distributive Social Welfare and Development, True-Poor (Tpoor)
Populations
Category of Respondents
Formula Identification
Page 25 of 49
F1 F2 F3
0.019841 0.012020 0.002300

F4 The Distributive Power of Distributive Social Welfare and
0.000972 0.000589 0.000113
Development
0.001524 0.000923 0.000177
0 0.011849** 0.011849
0 0.000581** 0.000581
0 -0.001870* -0.001870
*95% Confidence Interval of the Difference,/ **Descriptive Statistics Standard Mean
Formula – 5 (F5)
The Distributive Power for the Poor.
{ (𝑺𝑾𝑫𝑰) + (𝑭𝒏𝑮𝑺) + (𝑫𝒋) + (𝑩𝑾𝒔)}

𝑫 ∈ = (______________________________________________________________)
(𝑵)
Table 33, Predicted Distributive Power of NHTSPR at Program Level By Category of Respondents at 5th Formula -
The Distributive Power for the Poor, True Poor (Tpoor) Populations
F1 L1 SWDI F2 L2 SWDI F3 L3 SWDI
F1 Distributive Power of Status Quo. 0.00047 0.00030 0.00027
F3 The Distributive Power of Distributive Social Welfare and 0.05365 0.03422 0.03084
Development
F4 Distributive Power of Social Welfare and Development II 0.00148 0.00094 0.00085
F5 The Distributive Power for the Poor. 0.05264 0.03358 0.03026
Table 34. Predicted Distributive Power of NHTSPR at Program Level By Category of Respondents at 5th
Formula - The Distributive Power for the Poor NonTrue-Poor (NTpoor) Populations
F1 L1 SWDI F2 L2 F3 L3 SWDI
SWDI
F1 Distributive Power of Status Quo. 0.02076 0.01350 0.00217
Page 26 of 49
F3 The Distributive Power of Distributive Social Welfare and 0.93575 0.60843 0.09767
Development
F4 Distributive Power of Social Welfare and Development II 0.03814 0.02480 0.00398
F5 The Distributive Power for the Poor. 0.91840 0.59714 0.09586
PHILIPPINE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK (2023)
I. Rationale
This social development framework relative to social welfare governance in the country aims to help
academicians, social development practitioners and advocate to think beyond the customary theoretical and
“silos” framing of mind on how we look and approach social development in the context of humanistic delivery
of social welfare and governance, before the impoverished populations.
This framework may refine or recourse social welfare and development stakeholders’ structure and
system to create a nurturing social environment with respect to human rights and social justice.
In the Philippines, since the birth of national social welfare institution in 1915, the coordinated and
functional social welfare programs and services delivery system had been a challenged most especially in
targeting the legitimate poor (True-poor) to address the perennial problems of poverty.
The country’s social welfare and development governance (NGAs and LGUs) has always been focus
on economic dimensions of response in the context of political economy where the poor recipients (individuals
or community level) of social welfare programs are merely treated as passive receiver and not a relevant
catalyst agent of change in social development that contributes to the poor marginalization and sub-
marginalization. This concept aggravates the unwelcoming condition of dis-empowerment instead of the
positive nurturing social environment full of dignity.
The Philippine as a state party to various international conventions and treatises is oblige to
implement and embrace various social development strategies in combatting issues associated with social
problems such as poverty. Poverty per se’ is not uni-dimensional problem of social environment but the result
of complex impact of convoluted dis-empowering system brought by negative human condition and
environment. This social context in relation to this study on Philippine NHTSPR distributional power, this
social development and governance framework emanates.
The dimension of this framework is coherent and pre-requisite to other succeeding elements of social
development and governance that situate in Philippine context.
Page 27 of 49
Each Plate (Figs.1, 2, 3, 4) serve as a graphical guide of each component of this framework, based on structural
governance implementation of social development from micro, meso and macro dimensions.
I. Social Development System and Components of Governance
1) Income Classification -The Philippines has six (6) income classification of Local Government Units. The
classification is generally based on local income proceeds, geographic breadth and population count. The
inputs of national government and other social development stakeholders’ resources (IRA, development
programs assistance) are based on this classification. This basic classification is also the underpinning reason
of poverty status calculation for a given political subdivision. In international Oversees Development
Assistance (ODA) facilitation, the LGU income classification is also on top of their menu of criteria of
selection and prioritization in targeting their legitimate grassroots community as local development partners,
on. By empirical evidence and “de facto”, income classification is imperative element of governance in
social development perspective.
2) Geo-Political Classification – In many “development” literatures, the Urban and Rural classification is
categorized under geographic dimension which in fact urban and rural are based on geo-political context, how
developed or underdeveloped a certain social community is based on geographic characteristics, presence of
hard infrastructures and political climate, thus the researcher coined the rural and urban classification under
geo-political classification. The human social development condition is based on socio-cultural, geo-political,
economics and of natural environment, and always justified by these elements. The knowledge and
understanding on the dynamics of the people, and how complex issues affecting them (survival and adaptation)
under Geo-political classification is a must for social development initiatives program planning,
implementation and evaluation system.
3) Types of Community- In the synecology of community based on Philippine natural social environment,
the researcher categorized type communities on four (4) important distinct typology 1) Costal Communities,
2) Upland and Agricultural Communities, the 3) Indigenous People Community and 4) Urban-Landlocked
communities. The basis of these community typologies are on the following: natural environmental settings,
socio-cultural attribution and complexity, community/population interrelationships or dynamism, people
living condition (lives and livelihood/occupation).Any social development interventions focusing on the
people at any typology of community is important to have full understanding relevant to the social development
and welfare structural governance.
4) Risk and Vulnerability Assessment- The DSWD and partner LGUs have periodic Social Protection
Development Report (SPDR), covering spatial information on geography, demography, poverty, economic,
health, education and social welfare and protection. The document can also provide consolidated information
on Risk and Vulnerabilities of typology of communities and special sectors (women, children, older persons
and differently-abled persons), disaster risk vulnerabilities, social and economic governance indicators. In spite
of rich valuable information of this document, to cover the entirety of Social Welfare and Social Protection
Programs and Services (SW-SPPSs) in Social Development, vital information on environmental accounts is
missing specifically on consolidated environmental accounting and impact risk and vulnerabilities assessment
apart from related disaster risk, response and management information. The profile on indigenous people
Page 28 of 49
condition (in all dimensional measurement of development tool) as the most and always been the vulnerable
and dis-advantaged sector of the society, until the new rational development thinking advocates speak-out their
voices through inclusivity element of all governance realms has been embraced and realized. The National
Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR) and Community-Based Monitoring System
(CBMS) have relevant information on Poverty Profile in multi-dimensional tool both for means and proxy
means testing (PMT). The information gap on various thematic subject can be provided by PSA National
Accounts and other relevant statistical data. Likewise, Risk and Vulnerability Assessment rely on climactic
and weather conditions thus Climatology and Meteorological information from DOST and PAG-ASA weather
bureau are significant information, affecting the entire population across type of communities, geo-political
and income classifications, impacting the most vulnerable populations. This important pre-requisite element
of social development framework as input and throughput is mandatory and non-negotiable or optional, as this
serve as heart and foundational element of all social development initiatives.
5) (Statistical) Targeting Delivery Mechanism – As a result of this study, Targeting System for the poor,
marginalized and less-advantaged vulnerable sectors has only two statistical targeting delivery mechanism
categorization, which is the Means Testing (income-based) and Proxy Means Testing (non-income based
poverty indicators proxy variables), sub-categorized according to self- targeting, geographic targeting,
categorical targeting, proxy means test targeting (PMT),(that might dilute the objective, contextual and
transactional definitions of PMT as we all known), mixed targeting, and institutional targeting. The last two
sub-category of statistical targeting delivery mechanisms (mixed and institutional) might be new in targeting
system literature upon dissection of more than 90 available studies on targeting system worldwide. Mixed-
targeting was treated as invisible targeting mechanism as pre-requisite variable prior to the application of
Means and Proxy Means Testing. The example are geographic and categorical targeting, in the case the
Philippines use Small Area Estimates (SAE) in FIES and LFS in estimation of poverty incidence in a given
political subdivision (provincial, regional and national), given that such (Means or PMT) considered other
targeting delivery mechanism in poverty estimation that is already categorized as mixed-targeting system and
not purely means or PMT based targeting system. Policy as a cohesive element of any governance domain,
can “make or break” social welfare and development governance similarly any form of governance, either
structural or not. The institutions as facilitator of social change craft various policies related to social
development (hard and soft) infrastructures for a particular purpose or objective, say delivery system of social
protection and welfare for the poor through (any) targeting delivery systems and type of social protection,
deliberate or undeliberate, the implementation of new policy to cater particular sector or slight deviation apart
from the original statistical targeting system is considered an institutional (or the worst case is political welfare)
targeting through policy interventions.
Nowadays, social protection as a precursor and at the forefront in the delivery of social welfare and
development worldwide, must be crafted judiciously and studied to make it effective and efficient, minimizing
the error and bias from statistical design down to the implementation of specific programs and services.
Although social protection is a temporary social security measure in it sense (protection) for the affected
sectors (which is distinctively not “ceteris paribus” with welfare, although they are juxtapose in social
development context) the trickledown effect must be felt immediately to effectively address the worst global
or national economic impact and ultimately survive and avoid worsening condition by falling below and
beyond the poverty line.
Page 29 of 49
The selection of sound (purposive and inclusive) policy and targeting mechanism, allocation of
budget (percentage of budget against national budget spending i.e. social services) vis a vis magnitude of target
(problems, geographic area, sectors), credible institutions and manpower are essential prerequisites (Input) in
implementing social protection interventions. Another important elements that has to be considered is the
precision (specificity) and appropriateness of program and services horizontally and vertically (throughput).
The Sound targeting system in the Philippines and other parts of the South-east Asian region intend
to equalize the economic playing field for the poor, marginalized and disadvantaged sectors by giving them
enough leverage beyond the survival capacity. It is by reinforcing their access to all possible windows of
opportunities, thereby increasing their purchasing power parity through social protection programs.
The concept of the study focuses on the Distributive power of social welfare and development
programs and services through the Philippine National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction
(NHTSPR) or the LISTAHANAN. For more than a decade of implementation of this strategy of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in the country, no available or existing literatures
capture the distributive power (or the magnitude, efficiency and effectiveness of the targeting mechanism to
really identify the legitimate poor thru several validation routine (e.g systems verification, community
validation and reassessment, cross-indexing and the likes) to receive a particular program and services base on
set objectives, eligibility criteria and instituted policies) of the LISTAHANAN and partner
stakeholders/agencies at the program level.
6) Multi-Dimensional Poverty Measurement – Poverty measurement is an important development initiative

in social development, particularly in addressing social divide and injustice due to the pandemic of poverty
throughout the globe across human civilizations in different measurement tool. On one hand the current
poverty measurement tool is favourable in fuelling up economic dimension due to majority material and
income-based indicators and marginalization on the other country-development partners who have not, It is
important as one global community, poverty measurement tool/s must be socio-culturally and environmentally
sensitive to any state party that utilize such as poverty measurement tool/s, simply not merely on
(income/material) economic-based point of view, given the cultural diversity and socio-economic gap across
continents or regions.
The statistical identification of targeting delivery system if Means or PMT is a requisite in the context
of targeting the poor and True-poor in alignment with the crafting of Multi-dimensional poverty measurement
tool that is inclusive, environmental and socio-culturally sensitive without politico-economic bias. The global
and national adaption of unified multi-dimensional development indicators are the good sources of inclusive
multi-dimensional poverty measurement indicators such as the Sustainable Development Goal SDG) and
Human Development Index parallel to available and alternate proxy variables (in the absence of international
set indicators) at the national and regional contextual applications. In summary, the development of Multi-
dimensional poverty indicators as a tool of poverty measurements must be inclusive, and multi-dimensional in
its sense and not biased on economic indicators alone.
Page 30 of 49
The Philippines, as archipelagic and natural resource dependent population, to achieve the sound
social development (towards ambition 2040 as a national development blueprint), apart from the issue of
statistical delivery system of targeting, the absence of Inclusive Multi-Dimensional Poverty Indicators as the
national measurement of socio-economic conditions and politico-cultural cohesion, the addition of cultural
and environmental indicators in poverty measurement is suggested from the existing Philippine and
international (UN, World Bank, ADB, ASEAN) multi-dimensional measurement indicators of growth and
social development.
7) Philippine Social Protection Framework- In European and Scandinavian countries social welfare or
welfare per se, is akin to social protection (in the context of economics and economy of welfare) compared to
low, middle (where the Philippine belong to this economic groupings), upper income economy categories, that
welfare (by its basic definition) mixing up its course if purely economics or rights based welfare or protection
sub-summing welfare under social protection.
The concept of social protection, basically economics in nature because it is just a mitigating social
security for the affected and impacted sectors especially the poor in the event of global economic shakes. The
concept or theory of Distributive Justice is redistribution of (economic) resources horizontally and vertically.
One of the mechanisms and key elements of social protection is the statistical methodology, in targeting its
legitimate recipients of the program, appropriateness of polices and program and services delivery e.g.
designing its eligibility criteria to a particular program across society.
Statistical error is unavoidable in targeting system particularly in Proxy Means Testing (PMT), but
not on programmatic level that the “error” can be addressed through the institutionalization of sound policies
and eligibility criteria design. In other literatures some of these falls on “F” (failure on objectives) or “E”
(excessive coverage) mistakes resulted to mis-targeting which is associated with leakage means dis-
enfranchising or dis-incentivizing the legitimate target recipients. Given that the, prime objectives, economics
of efficiency and economics of welfare failed to achieved, the consequence are social inequality and social
injustice.
As the country is priming its social development course by institutionalizing the Community-Driven
Development (CDD) principle, revolutionizing its social development strategies of delivery system through
the important element of the Local Government Code of 1991- the devolution of power and local autonomy.
This principle was also strengthen when the Supreme Court issued the Mandanas-Garcia Ruling in 2020, on
national and local resource sharing. In addition, the national identification of the legitimate poor to its social
welfare and social protection endeavor, while facilitating appropriate social welfare development opportunities
to the recipients (individual and community) in an integrated and holistic delivery systems. The revalidation
of conceptual definition of social welfare and social protection to support and in parallel to its development of
national multi-dimensional measurement of poverty and social development for Ambisyon 2040 is of an
essence. The exploration of re-strengthening the current Philippine Social Protection Framework along with
the National Development Goal/Agenda is also necessary for inclusive achievement of Ambisyon 2040.
8) Social Welfare and Development Programs and Services Delivery Mechanisms- One of the delivery
systems of social welfare is targeting, particularly targeting the poor, marginalized and disadvantaged stratified
Page 31 of 49
society. As such, stratification is a form of inequality whether in a welfare state or rights state, or rights to a
welfare in a welfare state. There are 37 type of Social Welfare and Development Programs and Services
Delivery Mechanisms that had been consolidated around the world that the Philippines may select depending
on the institutional mandate of each NGA, prefer ability and appropriateness (suitability) at the local
government unit (LGU) and CSOs: Card/Food Voucher System1; Cash and Fee Waiver For Medical Treatment
And Waivers For School2; Cash Assistance3; Cash For Work/Cash Transfer4; Cash Incentives/Minimum
Income Guarantee5; Cash Transfer6; Cash Transfer Based on Guaranteed Minimum Consumption7 Cash
Transfer/ Health, Food And Education8; Cash Transfer/Education9; Cash Transfer/Minimum Income
Guarantee10; Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT)11;Country Fund Transfer/Funds Decentralization12; Food And
Kerosene Stamp13; Food Ration And Subsidized Rice Grain14; Food Subsidy15; Food Subsidy With Low
Income Elasticity16; Food Subsidy/ Self Targeting (Subsidy To Food With Low Income Elasticity), Some Use
Of Geographical Targeting and Means Testing17, Food Subsidy/Compensation Fund18; Food Subsidy/Ration
Card19; Fund Transfer20; Fund Transfer /Co-Financing21; Fund Transfer/Co-Implementation Local-Nat’l-
Private22;In Kind23; In-Kind-Social Transfer24; Labor Market /Social Transfer25; Intergovernmental Transfer
/Social Assistance26; Non Transferrable Check27; Public Subsidy (Cash , In Kind)28; Social And Fund
Transfers29; Social and Fund Transfer/Community Financing30; Social Assistance31; Social Capital/ Social
Transfer32; Social Capitalism and Soft Infrastructures33; Social Guarantee Fund/Cash Assistance/ Cash or In-
1
India
2
Zimbabwe
3
Namibia, South Africa, India
4
South Africa
5
Romania
6
Dominican Republic, Bulgaria, Uzbekistan, Mozambique, Yemen .Middle East And North Africa, Bangladesh
7
Kyrgyz Republic
8
Mexico And Nicaragua
9
Hungary
10
Slovenia
11
India, Thailand Philippines, Indonesia PRC, Brazil, World, WB/Un Member Countries ( Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Pakistan And Mexico)
12
Worldwide
13
Srilanka
14
India/Andra Pradesh And Maharashtra
15
Pakistan
16
MENA/Yemen
17
Philippines
18
Mena/Algeria
19
Egypt
20
China, World/Bolivia, Bangladesh
21
Bolivia
22
Brazil, Philippines
23
Ireland, Latin American Countries, Costa Rica, Peru
24
Philippines, Bangladesh
25
Philippines
26
Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union
27
Venezuela
28
Cape Verde
29
UN Member Countries
30
Albania
31
Transition Countries, Slovenia
32
Bangladesh
33
Germany/OECD Member Countries
Page 32 of 49
Kind34; Social Transfer35; Social Transfer/Cash Subsidy and Fund Transfer36; Social Transfer/Multi
System37;Social/Fund Transfer38; Supplementary Employment39; VAT Exemptions40
The institution of these social welfare and development programs and services or the (Agency)
“transfer system” from and by the government to the (Agent) sectoral communities is expected to provide
reinforcing instruments (output) to the target beneficiary or recipients development partners to address the
pressing problems (immediate effect of the output on economic aspects) to survive during the onset or strike
of the event, or unforeseen phenomenon. On this stage (from input to output and early stage of attaining the
outcome of the distributive properties of NHTSPR (the performance or soundness of the targeting system and
its program delivery mechanism is evident, measurable and can be evaluated.
Throughout the social welfare and development program implementation, refinement of systems and
policies from the identified challenges, gaps, laps and overlaps are address while enhancement of facilitating
factors and mechanisms will be in-placed as reinforcing strategies (eliminating the notion of “political welfare”
and “institutional targeting”) to achieve the expected outcome and avoid mis-targeting.
In the delivery of basic welfare by the state to its polity is not a prerogative but duty and responsibility,
on the contrary neither a privilege nor reward from being upright, but an inherent right of an individuals and
marginalized sectors of the society. The state is obliged to protect all their proclaimed, indispensable, and
inalienable entitlements to create human empowering systems towards a nurturing society and environment,
ignoring one of these basic rights is automatically a violation and social injustice. Ironically all delivery
systems of human development mechanisms promotes empowerment. Therefore, the states that contradict to
the principle of human rights advocate injustice and marginalization.
1st Level Identification of Poor and Eligibility Criteria Requirements (ECR) – Wrestle with the
issues of the targeting system frequently stem from delivery methods, social protection program eligibility
criteria setting requirements (ECR), statistical models (particularly PMT), and other elements that affect how
well various social protection and social welfare and development programs are implemented. Several
empirical findings demonstrate that incorrect targeting system led to the legitimate poor being excluded as
development partners, which implies social injustice, inequity, and inequality in the distribution of social
protection programs.
In reiteration and to emphasize the coherent nature of this Social Development Framework with
respect to governance in structural form, to reinforce and strengthen the current governance indicators. Each
element is sequential and interrelated. Upon the completion of eight (8) mandatory steps especially the
selection of Statistical Targeting Delivery Mechanism (Means or Proxy Means Test-PMT), the identification
of high correlated poverty variables, development of statistical model and Testing, as well as the identification
34
Vietnam
35
Zambia, Ireland, Philippines, Indonesia, Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union (Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland/ Estonia, Krygz Republic and Russia,
Malawi, World, Latin America and United States ( United States, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico), Argentina, Latin America/Bolivia,
Armenia, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, World, Bangladesh, Transition Countries, Latvia.
36
Philippines
37
Mexico
38
Brazil
39
India
40
South Africa
Page 33 of 49
of Type of Social Welfare and Social Protection Programs and Services (SW-SPPSs), Eligibility Criteria
Requirements (ECR1) and Eligibility Check Routine (ECR2), a clear picture of Social Welfare and Social
Protection Programs and Services (SW-SPPSs) delivery systems manifest..
The important part in targeting system to bridge the gap between the statistical models of predicting
the poor and program specific ECR1 (for operations) and information technology system design for the
purpose of Eligibility Check Routine (ECR2) in accordance with the implementing agency mandates prior to
program enrolment.
9) Three (3) Level Cross Indexing – The recurring problems of mis-targeting due to under-coverage and
PMT universal statistical error, during the cycle of targeting system implementation (procedural and
statistical), “errors” are inevitable. The challenge for the Cabinet Social Welfare and Development Committee,
the advocate and stakeholders of poverty reduction efforts in finding the True-poor among social welfare and
protection program beneficiaries is a hardest challenge either from PSA, CBMS or PMT identified poor of
NHTSPR, with respect to concerted efforts of lowering the poverty incidence as a national agenda. Identifying
the True poor is a favourable economics of poverty reduction program. This is to maximize the resource
distribution and redistribution of the limited resources to wider legitimate recipients of social welfare and
protection programs while minimizing or eliminating the resources leakage and social dis-enfranchisements.
This technical procedures covers Information Technology (IT), targeting system statistical (re)
verification and program implementation monitoring and evaluation to include the distributional power of the
social welfare and social protection evaluation and reprogramming purposes.
10) True-poor (Tpoor) Identification – Targeting the True poor in every segments of potential beneficiaries
could provide the social development facilitators a purposive and objective program design, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation on the progress and impact of a particular program at targeted individuals or family
according to their risk, vulnerabilities and opportunities of reinforcements towards an empowered programs
recipients.
The beneficiary Cross indexing methodology is pre-requisite procedural component of this

framework for True poor (purposive) social welfare and social protection program design (identification and
implementation) as a distinct (highest priority) “core” recipients of anti-poverty programs of all government
and private stakeholders. In the realm of True poor program implementation the traditional copy paste strategy
is inappropriate or irrelevant similarly the traditional M&E system. A specialized URBMES of recipients’
from identification, program monitoring and evaluation system at individual or family grassroots development
partner level is a must thus increasing the program implementation functionality and efficiency while ensuring
the recipients “take home” impact (ROI) to hurdle the program set poverty line in a given time.
12. Distributive Power – This element evaluates the soundness (predictive power) of statistical model in
predicting the initial (1st screener or validator) identified Poor from the Stage 9 through Means or PMT
methodology and Stage 11 (Tpoor), and rate of dispersion gap (RDG) at statistical and programmatic
application of the results of ECR1 and ECR2. Measuring the distributive power can lead project implementing
stakeholders and grassroot-recipients development partners in addressing the horizontal and vertical challenges
as well as “E” and “F” (depth of the problems and magnitude of coverage) errors, within the core segment of
the Poor populations, above (near poor) and below the indicative poverty line as a benchmark of Social Welfare
and Social Protection Programs and Services (SW-SPPSs) operational goal in program implementation,
monitoring and evaluation system (PIMES), Return of Investments (ROI) on impact level (*value of peso per
Page 34 of 49
recipient-cost efficiency), SW-SPPSs delivery system structural (policy) governance performance in poverty
reduction (societal).
13. Unified Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System (URBMES) and Knowledge Management
(KM) – As a clearing house of SW-SPPSs operational performance reports, and in the context of data
governance and knowledge management (KM), for data interpretation and translations of challenges,
learnings, innovations and breakthroughs into policy, laws and regulations, program design, strategies,
planning tool and institutional memories, an integrated system is necessary to guide, direct or recourse an
agency towards a functional institution/s of delivery system of social welfare and development (NGAs and
other stakeholders) favourable to the majority of the marginal, less advantaged and vulnerable groups of poor
populations of the Philippine society.
14) Feedback System – This mechanism is a significant system of social development framework in the
process of program implementation from the ground (grassroots poor population as the source of all vital
information and end target goal) of all forms of development efforts by various social development
stakeholders. Feedback system throughout the process is an ideal monitoring system in every stage of
development initiatives that resonates all stakeholders voices of hopes and grievances as critical evaluation of
the system and structures of the framework, their mirror-reflection. A cyclical process of ownership of all
stakeholders involved.
14) Philippine Social Development Environment and Social Development Governance – Social development
is empowering and improving the wellbeing of every individuals in a society full of dignity while reaching
their endless human potentials. Human rights and human dignity are the two striking fundamental principles
of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Strengthened by the International Covenant on
Economic Social, and Cultural Rights which includes the Political and Environmental spheres upholding the
full human dignity and individual personality development. On this premise it is simply the State parties must
empower its citizenry through its various social welfare and social development programs and services. The
principles of Justice and social justice where equity, equality, rights and freedom are the foremost elements
when discourse on social welfare and social development for the majority of the populace especially the poor,
disadvantaged, and marginalized sectors as raison d’ etre.
Further, given the trickle-down effect of the social development inputs was realized at the individual
level, the increase of the purchasing power, accessibility to windows of opportunities are at hand, the human
empowering system is reinforced while utilizing the distributive power of targeting system as one of the sound
measurements or quantification of expected impact have been evaluated. Equality, Equity, Freedom and Social
Justice as human empowering system of nurturing social environment was achieved. Satisfying the principles
of social welfare governance where the duty of care is pivotal and heart of social work), and the core essence
of UN Covenant for Social Development and United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this
end, we (as an institutions) can proudly claimed that we are relevant catalyst of human development, social
development and social change for all, despite of “societal framing of segmentations”.
Page 35 of 49
Diagram Description
The Figure or Plate No. 1, shows the Philippine Social Development Framework and Governance structural
visualization on how significance the country’s sound Targeting System in addressing poverty issues most
specially in targeting the Tpoor thus creating a nurturing social environment where social justice and human
rights are the center of rationale implementation of social welfare and social development programs and
services. Income and geopolitical classifications in a given type of community are necessary considerations,
while identifying its risk and vulnerabilities. After which, the identification of statistical targeting delivery
mechanism is a must whatever measurements of poverty the country’s decided to utilized. In many poverty
measurement s all over the globe, the ideal is the Multi-dimensional Poverty Measurements however given
the Philippine setting it is suggested to use mixed targeting delivery mechanisms while focusing on non-
economic measurements of poverty to capture the cultural dimension and heterogeneous characteristics of
Philippine communities.
Social Welfare and Social Protection Development Governance must consider the importance of the result of
statistical targeting (PMT and Means), Eligibility Criteria Requirements Identification and identifying the
True Poor (Tpoor) through the Three (3) level cross indexing to measure the Distributive Power of all
programs and the programmatic targeting delivery systems through its Rate of Dispersion Gap (RDG). This
is to address the inclusion and exclusion error horizontally and vertically including the geographic exclusion
of the program. The Unified Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation System and Knowledge Management
must be in unison when it comes to data governance for future policy development and review, program
design, targeting system enhancements and over-all program evaluation in terms of government Return of
Investments (ROI) and capitalization.
Figure 2, is the detailed presentation of Figure 1 on Delivery Mechanisms of Social Welfare and Development
Programs and Services. Six (6) categories of Local Government Units (LGUs) income class, two geopolitical
classifications, four (4) type of communities with special emphasis on Indigenous People as distinct type of
community combining the three (Urban, Upland and Coastal) typologies, the elements of risks and
vulnerabilities. This figure also reflect the Philippine Social (Development) and Protection Framework, nine
(9) identified type of targeting delivery systems and 37 program type of delivery mechanisms utilized in the
Philippines and all over the world. The five rings after the program type of delivery mechanisms represent
the validation routine of the SWD programs, an obligatory elements to ensure social justice (distributive
element) in Philippine Social Development and Social Welfare Governance realm.
Figure 3. The common gap in Social Development and Social Welfare Governance in the country is the
Structural Social Welfare and Development Institutional Arrangements, resulting to gaps and overlaps of
funding and implementing agencies from individual, family and community up to regional, national and
international regional blocks of fluid institutional dynamism in order to transport the program across
institutions in-synch and unison to immediately felt the trickle-down effect of various social development
interventions through the country’s functional Social Welfare Governance where feedback loop is
materialized
Figure 4, delve on Policy and Development Implementation System from Micro, Meso and Macro
dimensions, beginning in Policy inception, policy development and execution and budget implementation,
Page 36 of 49
and systems institutionalization. The Policy, as the vibrant force in structural system of governance play an
important role in the development and implementation of all anti-poverty programs and services targeting the
segments of poor and Tpoor above, within and below the poverty line. Policy cut-across Institutional
Arrangements, Delivery Systems/Mechanisms, and Governance. Having established functional feedback
systems, sound participation of all sectors in the community with the institutionalization of Distributive Power
could give us nurturing social development environment in the Philippines.
Page 37 of 49
Page 38 of 49
Page 39 of 49
Page 40 of 49
Page 41 of 49
REFERENCES
Adama Bah, Samuel Bazzi, SudarnoSumarto, Julia Tobias (2017), Finding the Poor vs. Measuring their Poverty:
Exploring the Drivers of Targeting Effectiveness in Indonesia. Department of Economics, Boston
University, MA, USA
Adato, M. and L. Haddad (1999). Targeting Poverty Programmes: Community-Based Public Works in South
Africa. Mimeo, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington D.C.
Ahmed Akhter and Bouis Howarth Identifying the Needy: Proxy Means Tests For Food Subsidies in Egypt;
Project Report, (1999), IFPRI, 1999
Ahmed, A. (2000). Targeted Distribution in Out of the Shadow of Famine: Evolving Food Markets and Food
Policy in Bangladesh” (Eds) R. Ahmed, S. and T. Chowdhury Haggblade, Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
Ahmed, A., and K. Billah (1994). Food for Education Program In Bangladesh: An Early Assessment. Manuscript
No. 62, IFPRI, Dhaka.
Alderman H, (1998) Social Assistance in Albania, World Bank, Living Standards measurement Study Working
Paper No.134
Alderman H. (1988), The Twilight of Flour Rationing in Pakistan. Food Policy, August, pp. 245-256
Alderman H. and Lindert K.( 1998) The potential and limitations of self-targeted food subsidies. World Bank
Research Observer, vol. 13(2)
Aleta Sprague (2014), Poverty is Structural – So are Solutions, NEW AMERICA , accessed March 02, 2022
https://www.newamerica.org/asset-building/the-ladder/poverty-is-structural-so-are-solutions/
Amartya Sen (2000), Development as Freedom,1st. Ed.Published by Alfred A. Knoff, Inc.. ISBN 0-3 7 5-40619-
0 (aJk. paper), Random House, Inc., New York.
Armando Barrientos, (2010) Social Protection and Poverty, Social Policy and Development Programme Paper
Number 42, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Asian Development Bank (2009), Poverty in the Philippines, Causes, Constraints and Opportunities. Asian
Development Bank,
Axel Weber (2012), Assessment of the Philippine Social Protection Floor Policies, Art.Nr.: 129 601 270,
Ben Watkins (2008), Alternative Methods for Targeting Social Assistance to Highly Vulnerable Groups,
Independent Monitoring & Evaluation Study, Final Report, 2008 Kimetrica International Limited.
Bourguignon, F., F. Ferreira and P. Leite (2002). Ex-ante evaluation of conditional cash transfer programs: The
case of Bolsa Escola. mimeo xxx.
Page 42 of 49
Braithwaite J., Grootaert C., and Milanovic B.; (2000), Poverty and Social Assistance in Transition Countries;
St. Martin’s Press, New York;
Case A. and Deaton A. (1998)Large cash transfers to the elderly in South Africa. Economic Journal, vol. 108
Castaneda, T., J. Cercone and L. Fernandez (2002). Costa Rica: Social spending and the poor. Report No. 24300-
CR. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Celia M. Reyes and Lani E. Valencia (2001?), Poverty Reduction Strategy and Poverty Monitoring: Philippine
Case Study, Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS)
Celia M. Reyes, (2006) Alternative Means Testing Options Using CBMS, DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO.
2006-22, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Christiaan Grootaert, Jeanine Braithwaite (1998), Poverty Correlates and Indicator-Based Targeting In Eastern
Europe And The Former Soviet Union. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network, The World Bank
Christina Hackmann (2012), Legal Empowerment of The Poor And Its Relation To Pro-Poor Growth, Deutsche
Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Giz), Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: The Role Of
Empowerment – © OECD 2012
CHRISTOPHER T. WHELAN, (2007) Understanding the Implications of Choice of Deprivation Index for
Measuring Consistent Poverty in Ireland, The Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, The
Economic and Social Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, Summer/Autumn, 2007, pp. 211–234
CONEVAL,(Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo) (2016) Social) Multidimensional

Measurement of poverty in Mexico: an economic wellbeing and social rights approach, National Council
for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy
Daas, Yousuf ,POVERTY: A STRUCTURAL PERSPECTIVE 2018/08/01,JOUR, accessed March 02, 2022
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332963664_POVERTY_A_STRUCTURAL_PERSPECTIVE
Datt G., Payongayong E., Garrett J., and Ruel M.(1997),The GAPVU Cash Transfer Program in Mozambique:
An Assessment. FCND Discussion Paper No. 36, IFPRI, 1997
David Coady and Susan Parker (2009), Targeting Social Transfers To The Poor In Mexico, IMF Working Paper,
Fiscal Affairs Department, 2009 International Monetary Fund WP/09/60
Dean Jolliffe, Espen Beer Prydz, Societal Poverty: A Relative and Relevant Measure, The World Bank Economic
Review, Volume 35, Issue 1, February 2021, Pages 180–206, accessed March 02,
2022 https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhz018
Dennis S. Mapa , Manuel Leonard F. Albis, ( 2013) NEW PROXY MEANS TEST (PMT) MODELS:
IMPROVING TARGETING OF THE POOR FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION, 12th National Convention
on Statistics (NCS) , EDSA Shangri-La Hotel , October 1-2, 2013
Dennis S. Mapa, (2015) Demographic Sweet Spot and Dividend in the Philippines: The Window of Opportunity
is Closing Fast , United Nations Population Fund in collaboration with the National Economic and
Development Authority.
Page 43 of 49
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, Division for Social Policy and Development, The
International Forum for Social Development Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United
Nations, 2006.
Diego Angel-Urdinola and Quentin Wodon (2008), Assessing the Targeting Performance of Social Programs-
Cape Verde, Public Finance for Poverty Reduction, International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, World Bank/ResearchGate
Dorosh, P. and S. Haggblade (1995). “Filling the Gaps: Consolidating Evidence on the Design of Alternative
Targeted Food Programs in Bangladesh.” The Bangladesh Development Studies, Vol. XXIII, Sept.-Dec.
1995, Nos.3&4, pages 47-80. World Bank
Dutta B. and Ramaswami B. (2001) Targeting and efficiency in the Public Distribution System: Case of Andhra
Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Economic and Political Weekly Vol. XXXVI(18), pp. 1524-1532
E. Skoufias, B. Davis and S. de la Vega (2001), Targeting and the Poor in Mexico: An Evaluation of the
Selection of Households into PROGRESA, World Development, 29(10), pp1769-84.
Edirisinghe N. (1987) The food stamp scheme in Sri Lanka: Costs, benefits and options for modification. IFPRI
Research Report No. 58
Edmonds E. (2001), Targeting Child Benefits in a Transition Economy. Unpublished, Department of Economics,
Dartmouth College.
Gaiha R., K. Imai, and P. Kaushik (2001); On the Targeting and Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programmes
in Rural India; Development and Change, 32, pp309-42;
Galasso, E. and M. Ravallion (1999). Distributional outcomes of a decentralized welfare program. Policy
Research Working Paper 2316, World Bank, Washington D.C.
Grootaert C. (1997), Poverty and social transfers in Hungary Policy Research Working Paper 1770, World Bank,
Washington D.C
Grosh M. (1994), Administering targeted social programs in Latin America. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Grosh, M. (1994). Administering targeted social programs in Latin America: From platitudes to practice. World
Bank, Washington D.C.
Harold Alderman ( 2001), Multi-Tier Targeting of Social Assistance: The Role of Intergovernmental Transfers
The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 33–53
Hassan F. and Peters R (1995). Social safety net and the poor during the transition: The case of Bulgaria. Policy
Research Working Paper 1450, World Bank, Washington D.C
Iffath A. Sharif, (2012),Can Proxy Means Testing Improve the Targeting Performance of Social Safety Nets in
Bangladesh?Bangladesh Development Studies, Vol. XXXV, June 2012, No. 2
Page 44 of 49
J. Van Domelen, L. Rawlings, and L. Sherburne-Benz (2001), “Evaluating Social Fund Performance:
International Evidence from Community-Based Poverty Reduction Programs”, World Bank Economic
Review, vol. 12;
Jacoby H. (1999), Is there an intra household “flypaper effect”? Evidence from a school feeding program.
Mimeo, World Bank, Washington D.C
Jalan, J. and M. Ravallion (1999). Income gains to the poor from workfare: Estimates for Argentina’s Trabajar
Program, mimeo, Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington D.C.
John Weiss (Ed), (2005),Poverty Targeting in Asia, Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo, Japan,
Jonathan Conning and Michael Kevane (2000) Community Based Targeting Mechanisms for Social Safety Nets,
Williams College.
Julie L. Drolet (2014), Social Protection and Social Development-International Initiatives, Springer Dordrecht
Heidelberg New York London, Library of Congress Control Number: 2013951323
Kamimura Yasuhiro (2014), Welfare State Development In East Asia: A Cross-Continental Comparison, Nagoya
University, Harvard-Yenching Institute Working Paper Series.
Katarzyna Wargan (Ed), Using a Proxy Means Test for Targeting in a Conditional Cash Transfer Program,
(2013), BOTA Foundation, IREX and Save the Children,
Kriesel S. and Zaidi S. (1999) The Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) in Uttar Pradesh, India – An
Evaluation. World Bank Draft Report, Washington DC.
Lamont, Julian and Christi Favor, "Distributive Justice", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/justice-
distributive/>.
Leach Jennifer, (1997)?, Cash Transfers A Case Study: Venezuela’s Subsidio Familiar, Draft
LISTAHANAN (2015), Listahanan Info Kit on the Philippine National Household Targeting System for Poverty
Reduction, National Household Targeting Office, Department of Social Welfare and Development,
Batasan Complex, Batasan Hills, Quezon City.
Mark A. et al.,(1999), Improving Social Assistance in Armenia. World Bank Report No.19385-AM, Human
Development Unit, Country Department III, Europe and Central Asia
Maurizio Bussolo Carla Krolage Mattia Makovec Andreas Peichl Marc Stöckli Iván Torre Christian Wittneben
Vertical and Horizontal Redistribution The Cases of Western and Eastern Europe (2018), Office of the Chief
Economist, Europe and Central Asia Region.
Mason A. et al. /World Bank (2003). Dominica Social Protection Review . World Bank Report 26254–DM,
Washington DC
Mehra K. and Rashid M. (2002). Social Protection in Uzbekistan. World Bank.Washington DC

Page 45 of 49
Milanovic B.( 2000), Social Transfers and Social Assistance: An Empirical Analysis Using Latvian Household
Survey Data ,World Bank Policy Research Working paper #2328
Morris S.et al (2001), Social Nutrition Programs with Explicit Targeting , IFPRI mimeo
Morris, S., et al. (2001) ‘Social Nutrition Programs with Explicit Targeting Strategies’, mimeo, Washington DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Muhammad Yunus ( 2007),Creating a World Without Poverty, Social Business and the Future of Capitalism
with Karl Weber, Perseus Books Group.
Munro L. (2003), A social safety nets for the chronically poor? Zimbabwe’s public assistance in the 1990s.
Mimeo, Department of Policy, Planning and Development, Fordham University, New York.
Nanda Ashirwad INSIGHTS (2022) Complex, 3rd Floor, Above Village Hyper Market, Chandralyout Main
Road, Attiguppe , Bengaluru – 560040 accessed March 03, 2022
https://www.insightsonindia.com/society/poverty-and-developmental-issues/attributes-of-poverty/
Olivier De Schutter (2018), The rights based welfare state, Public budgets and economic and social rights,
Friedrich Ebert STiftung.
Park, A., S. Wang and G. Wu. (2002). Regional poverty targeting in China. Journal of Public Economics, vol.
86(1), pp. 123-153.
Paul Spicker, (2002), Poverty And The Welfare State Dispelling The Myths , A Catalyst Working Paper , Central
Books.
Pradhan, M., L. Rawlings and G. Ridder (1998). The Bolivian social investment fund: An analysis of baseline
data for impact evaluation. World Bank Economic Review, vol. 12(3),pp. 457-482.
Prescott N. (1997), Poverty, Social Services, and Safety Nets in Vietnam, World Bank Discussion Paper No.
376,
Preston Emily (2021) blog, What are the three structural causes of poverty? accessed March 02, 2022
https://www.thenewsindependent.com/what-are-the-three-structural-causes-of-poverty/
Quinn, S. (1998) Social investment funds. A case study: Brazil’s northeast rural poverty alleviation program.
Case study presented at workshop on Transfers and social assistance for the poor in the LAC region.
World Bank, Washington D.C.
Rajan S. I.Social (2001) Assistance for poor elderly: How effective?, Economic and Political Weekly Vol.
XXXVI(8), pp. 613-617
Ravallion, M. and Q. Wodon (1999). Does child labor displace schooling? Evidence from behavioral responses
to an enrollment subsidy. Policy Research Working Paper 2116, World Bank, Washington D.C.
Razmara, S. et al. (1999). Consumer Food Subsidy Programs in the MENA Region. World Bank Report
No.19561-MNA, Human Development Group, Middle East and North Africa Region, World Bank,
Washington D.C.
Page 46 of 49
Sang Kyun Kim (1999), Cash Assistance in Korea, Mimeo, Seoul National University
Sergio Firpoa,Renan Pieria, Euclides Pedroso Jr,, André Portela Souza ( 2014) Evidence Of Eligibility
Manipulation For Conditional Cash Transfer Programs, aC-Micro – FGV, Escola de Economia de São
Paulo (EESP).
Schulz-Forberg, Hagen (2012). "Welfare State." Encyclopedia of Global Studies. Ed. Helmut K. Anheier, Mark
Juergensmeyer, and Victor Faessel. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2012. 1783-88. SAGE Reference Online.
Web. 4 Apr. 2012.
SKYSKOOL (2022) accessed March 02, 2022 , https://syskool.com/
Social Fund Office, World Bank Social Investment Fund Annual Progress Report for the year 2000, (2000),
Mimeo, World Bank, Washington
Subbarao K (1998),Namibia’s social safety net: Issues and options for reform. Policy Research Working Paper
#1996, World Bank, Washington DC
Supreme Court of the Philippines, (2018) Mandanas Ruling, G.R. No. 199802, July 03, 2018 , accessed June 03,
2022, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64325
Tarsicio Castañeda and Kathy Lindert, with Bénédicte de la Brière, Luisa Fernandez, Celia Hubert, Osvaldo
Larrañaga, Mónica Orozco, and Roxana Viquez (2005), Designing and Implementing Household
Targeting Systems: Lessons from Latin American and The United States, No. 0526 , Social Protection
Discussion Paper Series , Social Protection Unit ,Human Development Network, The World Bank
TELES, Filipe, Local Governance, Identity And Social Capital: A Framework For Administrative Reform,
University of Aveiro, Campus de Santiago,3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal, Theoretical and Empirical
Researches in Urban Management Volume 7 Issue 4 / November 2012
Tesliuc, E. (2003). Kyrgyz Republic: Enhancing pro-poor growth. Report No. 24638-KG. World Bank,
Washington D.C.
Tesliuc, E. et. al (2003). Romania: Poverty Assessment, World Bank Report No. 26189-RO.
The World Bank (2007) Malawi Social Protection Status Report, Report No. 40027-MW Sustainable
Development Network, AFTCS, Country Department 2, Malawi, Africa Region.
The World Bank (2012), Targeting, Poor And Vulnerable Households In Indonesia, THE WORLD BANK
OFFICE JAKARTA.
The World Bank Group, (2013), Guidance Note 2, Beneficiary Targeting, Building Resilience, Case studies
compiled for the toolkit on Building Resilience to Disaster and Climate Change through Social
Protection. www.worldbank.org/sp
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2001). Strengthening policies and
programmes on social safety nets: Issues, recommendations and selected studies. Social Development
Division, ESCAP, Social Policy Paper No. 8, Thailand.
Page 47 of 49
United Nations, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples ( 2009), Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Division for Social Policy and Development Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,
ST/ESA/328 United Nations publication Sales No. 09.VI.13 ISBN 92-1-130283-7.
United Nations (2015) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
United Nations (1948) The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, accessed April 15, 2022,
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Van de Walle D (2002), Poverty and Transfers in Yemen .Middle East and North Africa Work Paper Series, No.
30,
Van de Walle D. (2002) The static and dynamic incidence of Vietnam’s public safety net. Mimeo, World Bank,
Washington D.C.
Vicente B. Paqueo, Elvira M. Orbeta, Sol Francesca S. Cortes, and Ana Christina V. Cruz, (2014), Analysis of
the Near-Poor Challenge and Strategy Development Ideas. With support from the ADB, World Bank and
DFAT development partners.
Vivi Alatas, Abhijit Banerjee, Rema Hanna, Benjamin A. Olken, Ririn Purnamasari, Matthew Wai-Poi (2013),
Does Elite Capture Matter? Local Elites and Targeted Welfare Programs In Indonesia Working Paper
18798,
Vodopivec Milan, (1998) Transition from Cash Benefits to Work: The Case of Slovenia. Empirical Economics
(1998) 23:177-202
Whelan, Christopher T.; Nolan, Brian; Maitre, Bertrand (2006), MEASURING CONSISTENT POVERTY IN
IRELAND WITH EU SILC DATA, Working Paper No. 165, Economic and Social Research Institute,
http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20060914111651/WP 165.pdf
Zaidi, S. and R. Murgai. (2002). Bangladesh public expenditure review. World Bank Report No. 24370-BD,
World Bank, Washington D.C.
iPMT POOR and NON POOR- Refers to identified poor by NHTSPR through the predicted income through PMT (Category of Targeting)
while NON-POOR are those HHs income above the poverty threshold set by the PSA. In the discussion of Social Protection Programs it
uses the term BENEFICIARIES. In the context of predicting the DISTIBUTIVE POWER (𝑫 ∈) of Social Welfare and Protection
Program/s, TRUE POOR refers to the final result of three level cross indexing (LR01) based on PMT identified poor of Cycles 1 and 2 (L1
and L2) in a particular SPP, while NON-POOR, are those HHs identified by LR01 (PMT) existing in L1 and L2 as poor but not exists when
the 3rd Cross Indexing was initiated.
ii N/A label reflected on Tables 2 and 3, -Geographic Distributions of SPP – under the columns N/A) - signify that these number of HHs
are under the category of Under-Coverage which means they are not exist in either of the 2 Cycles (L1 and l2), because upon the
initiation of 3rd level cross indexing it cannot locate/find these specific household’s HH ID numbers, or they are actually non-poor in
either L1 and L2 of NHTSPR Proxy Means Testing (PMT).
iii The
reference Population of Reflected data came from the 66,653 HH Subject for Validation due to Non-Poor category from L3. And the
total "Target of 27,187 is actually the "Accomplished" of PMO-Palawan/ For further verification Non-Poor Category of L3 for Palawan be
subject for L1 & L2 name matching and check to validate the HHs of Pantawid if retain or not. (The result can justify the relevance of this
study as a tool in identifying the "Chronic Poor" and PMT and ECR errors for Policy considerations and beneficiaries justification to exit
from the social welfare programs (Graduate) or Not. Reference Data: PANTAWID SWDI MONITORING (National Data) - PALAWAN PROVINCE, and
(MIMAROPA Monitoring of Non Poor HHs (L3) SWDI 2019-2022 as of (09/08/22)
Page 48 of 49
iv Thevalue of variable (N) can be changed or substituted depending on the a) Populations (of Poor, True-Poor or PMT Non-Poor or True
Non-Poor), b) Geographic Coverage, c) Magnitude of sample or subsample sector/s, d) Type of Community, e) Geographic classifications,
f) Core-variables, g) Level of Governance and Government (political) Structures and h) program coverage, i) Objectives/purpose, j)
structural elements, k) Social Protection Programs and Social Welfare and Development Services, l) preferred predictive Distributive
Power at lower and upper (T-test paired and regression statistical) bounds), m) Targeting Mechanisms and n) Delivery Systems at the
Program Level o) level of governance functionalities, p) cross tabulations of all available or selected variables of Distributive Power, q) Sex
and Gender, r) Reliability of Respondents, s) Proximity to Natural Resource Conservation Areas t) Validation on level of Environmental
Governance and u) Human Development (Index) v) Sustainability, w) program Distributional characteristics, x)Welfare Justice and y)
Rights, and z) Distributive Power Formula Options and other possible variables Extrapolations.
vN - Super-Population of the Study Area (Palawan)*Cardinal Reference population ( 224,813 HHs of the 242,633 of identified poor of L1
or the Cycle 1
vi 4pswdi Level of Well-Being is based on Social Welfare Development Index developed by the DSWD in its social welfare and protection
programs. The details (sub sample, and total population SWDI specific scoring and weighing points were based on Pantawid Pamilya
Pilipino Program (4Ps) official program evaluation and operational manuals and monitoring document 2019-2022.
vii
Five (5) Formula Options (Applications) – The applicability of each suggested formula is based upon the prerogative of the implementing
agency with special considerations on current and alternative measurements of social welfare governance. However the Formula Option 5
is highly suggested to utilize given its results in predicting the distributive power objectively, across SWDI level of wellbeing at a given
population- N.
i
The figure of 1.0 at standard error column under the Descriptive Statistics of Social Protection Program is due to rounding off of Standard Deviation (SD)
result. In this study any figures appear from .1 to .444, are treated as representative of individuals when it comes to social protection/social welfare
development programs and services, (there is no fractional equivalent of a person, if we want to exponentially capture the majority of the True poor (Tpoor)
who needed it most). Thus, there is a slight deviation on the figure at total row, of which the author deliberately show the exact/original value based on normal
summation.
Page 49 of 49

The Distributive Power of the Philippines National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction-NHTSPR Implication for Social Development (CSO Version)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

The Distributive Power of the Philippines National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction-NHTSPR Implication for Social Development (CSO Version)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE DISTRIBUTIVE POWER OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD

TARGETING SYSTEM FOR POVERTY REDUCTION (NHTSPR): IMPLICATIONS

Graduate School of Philippine School of Social Work (PSSW)

II. Summary of Findings

Research Locale, Population, Sample and Frequency Distribution

Frequency Distribution of PMT of L2 and 3RD LEVEL CROSS INDEXING (LR01)

Equitability and Distributional Properties of the NHTSPR at the Program Level

2,2 Structural Functions

Structural Function -Budget Policy, Agent, Agency

The Distributive Power of NHTSPR

b. Strengthening of Social Welfare and Social Protection Governance

c. National and International Networking and Advocacy (Regional Level)

c. Social Welfare and Social Protection

c. Delivery System of Social Welfare and Social Protection Program.

Ave.TOTAL 75,448 42,873 7,480 188 245 24 1 20 20 1,027 115 1 116

TOTAL 466,210 626,764 218,094 1,311,068 38.53% 30.38% 31.10% 0.559

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

SWDSC SWDSC SWDSC SWDSC SWDWEI SWDWEI SWDWEI SWDWEI

REGRESSION RESULTS OF STATISTICAL MODELLING AT SELECTED VARIABLES OF DISTRIBUTIVE POWER AS PREDICTORS

{(𝑭𝒏) + (𝑫𝒋) + (𝑩𝑾𝒔)}

0.00066665 0.021017004 0.020350354

{ (𝑭𝒏) + (𝑫𝒋) + (𝑩𝑾𝒔) + (𝑺𝑾𝑫𝑰)}

0.02180 0.01417 0.00228

F2 Distributive Power of Social Welfare Protection Programs 2.32116 1.50922 0.24227

0.04981 1.51362 0.24297

{(𝑩𝑾𝒔) + (𝑺𝑾𝑫𝑰) (𝑭𝒏) + (𝑺𝑭) + (𝑫𝒋)}

0.01615 0.01050 0.00169

0.35001 0.22758 0.03653

{ (𝑭𝒏𝑮𝑺) + (𝑫𝒋) + (𝑩𝑾𝒔)}

0.019841 0.012020 0.002300

{ (𝑺𝑾𝑫𝑰) + (𝑭𝒏𝑮𝑺) + (𝑫𝒋) + (𝑩𝑾𝒔)}

F1 Distributive Power of Status Quo. 0.00047 0.00030 0.00027

F2 Distributive Power of Social Welfare Protection Programs 0.05164 0.03294 0.02968

F5 The Distributive Power for the Poor. 0.05264 0.03358 0.03026

F2 Distributive Power of Social Welfare Protection Programs 0.90102 0.58584 0.09404

F5 The Distributive Power for the Poor. 0.91840 0.59714 0.09586

PHILIPPINE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK (2023)

I. Social Development System and Components of Governance

6) Multi-Dimensional Poverty Measurement – Poverty measurement is an important development initiative

The beneficiary Cross indexing methodology is pre-requisite procedural component of this

CONEVAL,(Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo) (2016) Social) Multidimensional

Mehra K. and Rashid M. (2002). Social Protection in Uzbekistan. World Bank.Washington DC

SKYSKOOL (2022) accessed March 02, 2022 , https://syskool.com/

United Nations (2015) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You might also like