A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
Lyceum of the Philippines University – Batangas

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master in Public Administration

Buena S. Tumambing
April, 2018


The world today is in huge chaos because of poverty, the typically Pilipino poor family thought that fate is the reason why they are in deep struggle in life, that being used to their situation makes them accept the fact that they are poor and no matter how they strive hard in life they will always be poor. They are bound to pass on poverty to their children, to the next generation. They suffer from poverty mainly because they have no source of income to get through their day to day life, they lack in capacity to provide their basic needs. Most of the poor people are illiterate, low income earners and unemployed and their children are most likely malnutrition, child laborers or out of school. This is why the government is seeking long term solution to eradicate poverty.

Poverty is an economic issue that has long been a persistent problem in different nations, especially among developing countries. The issue of poverty became the focus of many political and socioeconomic reforms that have been undertaken in the quest to mitigate poverty. However, many of these reforms did not yield sustainable results. This is mainly because poverty is a complex phenomenon where the linking of economic, social, political and demographic factors is crucial (Annan, 2013). Philippine poverty is mainly caused by low employment opportunities, substandard to moderate economic growth for several decades, income inequality, and external shocks such as natural calamities, economic crises, and political issues. (Asian Development Bank in Cabrera et.al 2016)

In 2007, the government has started implementing the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program locally known as the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program or 4Ps. This 4Ps is patterned after CCT programs in Latin American countries like Brazil’s Bolsa Familia and Mexico’s Oportunidades. CCT is one of the best and largest program the government has come up to resolve the issue of poverty. But somehow there are those critics openly opposed the program by condemning the government of creating a culture of dependency. The Philippines 4Ps since it has been launched was highly criticized, particularly by taxpayers and those in the business sectors. Speculations and series of street debates arises. The 4Ps by far is the most comprehensive and also, controversial poverty reduction program of the Philippine government because of the huge amount of money the government is spending for this.

The scope of CCTs is not just about eradicating poverty or gives financial aid to the poorest of the poor, but also to empower poor households through social activities that would help them mitigate poverty in the future. The beneficiaries should comply with the conditions of the program with specific verifiable behavior such as pregnant women undergoing preventive health check-ups, children 0-5 years old undergoing growth monitoring and receiving vaccinations, and the children aged 3-14 years old enrolled in Day Care, kindergarten, primary and secondary and alternative delivery modes of education maintaining at least an 85% attendance. The parents should also attend Family Development Sessions (Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Operations Manual, 2012).

The 4Ps operates in all the 17 regions in the Philippines, covering 79 provinces, 143 cities, and 1,484 municipalities. Beneficiaries are selected through the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR). Lipa City is one of the 143 cities with 4Ps, and in fact according to the Small Area Poverty Estimate (SAE 2009) poverty incidence rates in Lipa City in particular drops from 13.4 to 3.9 gaining 9.5% but it is not enough to conclude that 4Ps is being implemented effectively in the city. Over the past decade Lipa City has been quickly moving towards urbanization and improved infrastructure, the influx of jobs in various economic zones in and around the city from foreign manufacturing firms has contributed to the rising population growth rate, more so ballooning population has significantly increase poverty incidents.

According to Philippine Statistics Authority (2016) the last five years has significantly increase the population in Lipa City, from 283,468 in 2010 population has reached 332,386 in the last mid 2015 census, so as the increasing informal settlers and migrant workers. The development has brought about the issue of poverty, insufficient food supply, malnutrition, poor medical facilities, and lack education and competencies. The city’s economic development has not reached everyone – around ten per cent of the population is unemployed. Families living in these conditions struggle daily to put food on the table and look after their children. Children often suffer from malnutrition or ill health. Access to education is a further concern. Although schooling is provided free of charge, many parents cannot afford the extra costs of sending their children to school, and they can only do so with the help of scholarships. (SOS Children’s Village Lipa, 2017)

Indeed, 4Ps program is a great help to the poor Lipeño, but the city still needs help in addressing the arising poverty situation. It is in this context that the researcher finds the need to study the effectiveness of 4Ps in Lipa City, to assess the implementation of the program in terms of eradicating poverty and health issues among poor communities in the city. To seek answers to critics calling 4Ps a dole-out and seek validation and truthfulness to the controversies circling around that targeting of beneficiary are being manipulated and being influenced by politics and other social factors.

Furthermore, the researcher believed that through this study, government may identify programs and projects needed to further improve the quality of services for the Lipeños.


1. The study aims to determine the effectiveness of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) in addressing poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition in Lipa City, more specifically to assess the effectiveness of programs in terms of its goals of:

a. Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger through Social Assistance through Health and Nutrition Cash Grant and Education Cash Grant.

b. Achieving Universal Primary Education through child enrollment in Day Care, Kindergarten, Elementary and Secondary schools and maintain a class attendance rate of at least 85% per month.

c. Promoting Gender Equality by providing in Family Development Sessions.

d. Reducing Child Mortality through regular child health check, completion of vaccination, weight monitoring and deworming.

e. Improving Maternal Health through regular pre-natal check, health monitoring of pregnant women, providing parenting sessions and child care sessions.

2. To test the significant difference in the effectiveness of the 4Ps programs among the respondents.

3. To identify the factors contributory to the effectiveness of the 4Ps program in Lipa City.

4. To test the significant difference in the factors contributory to the effectiveness of the 4Ps programs.

5. To test the significant relationship in the effectiveness and factors among the respondents.

6. To propose a plan of action to enhance the implementation of the 4Ps program in Lipa City.


Poverty is a universal problem endured by many countries. In 2014, world population totaled to 7.2 billion. From this figure, more than 3 billion people live under $1.25 a day. This indicates that almost 50% of the people around the globe lives under extreme poverty (World Bank, 2015). The country is evidently not spared from this situation. In the circumstance of the Philippines, poverty remains rampant. Although the country attained economic growth, poverty was not reduced and income inequality remains high (Asian Development Bank, 2009).

Philippine poverty is mainly caused by low employment opportunities, substandard to moderate economic growth for several decades, income inequality, and external shocks such as natural calamities, economic crises, and political issues. Reports shows that poverty is attributed to the lack of human capital development and lack of educational attainment, the government has implemented several anti-poverty programs focusing on the improvement of human capital to alleviate poverty (Asian Development Bank 2013).

According to ADB (2009), Poverty in the Philippines and other developing countries is not only a matter of lack in financial access but is also caused by inadequate human competencies and limited access to social services. This is aggravated by the increasing economic and social inequality that is oftentimes biased to the nation’s poorest people. Social protection is then necessary in alleviating the poorest of the poor households and in reducing if not totally eliminating inequality in the country. The provision of social protection to the most marginalized and vulnerable groups is therefore considered significant in protecting them not only from vulnerability and deprivation but also in advancing their wellbeing and security and fulfilling their basic human rights as well. Social protection is hence a means of providing the essential needs for survival that enhances their quality of life and eventually leading to decent life and freeing the poor from the grasp of poverty (International Labour Office, 2003).

Aiming for a decent and quality life, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)1 were considerable efforts established in 2000 for poverty reduction across the globe. Twentyone (21) time-bound targets were recognized to measure progress in poverty reduction and hunger as well as improvements in health, education, living conditions, environmental sustainability and gender equality. The MDG 1 is specifically focused on “eradicating extreme poverty and hunger” coming with three targets namely halving the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 a day, achieving full and productive employment and decent work for women and people, and halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger between 1990 and 2015 (United Nations, 2011). The MDGs were heralded to have opened a new chapter in international development and described as ‘the most broadly supported, comprehensive and specific poverty reduction targets’ the world has ever established (Vandemoortele, 2011).

In In line with this MDGs efforts to provide financial aid, education and health to the poorest of the poor, countries across the globe has launching Conditional Cash Transfer after the promising result of the first conditional cash transfer programs integrated in Brazil and Mexico as a way of eradicating and poverty and reducing inequality all over the country. Brazil’s first CCT program was called Programa de Eradicacão do Trabalho Infantil, but this was later integrated to the country’s recent CCT called Bolsa Familia (World Bank, 2011). On the other hand, Mexico implemented its CCT, called Progresa, in an attempt to provide financial aid to poor households and improve education and health among children (Fiszbein et al., 2009). According to Jaramillo (2011), the positive initial impact that Progresa and Programa de Eradicacão do Trabalho Infantil had on enrollment and health encouraged other countries to follow the framework of CCT. One of the reasons for this is the spillover effect that CCTs cause. For instance, Lehmann (2009) found that in low income countries, CCTs have social spillover effects when women receive the cash transfer. This is exhibited when women become more empowered since they are the ones directly receiving the cash from the program. (J.J. Casco et. al)

Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) are programs that transfer cash, generally to poor households, on the condition that those households make prespecified investments in the human capital of their children. Countries have been adopting or considering adoption of CCT programs at a prodigious rate. (Fiszbein et al., 2009) The Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs serves as the government’s answers to the pressing issues regarding poverty. CCT is defines the as programs that provide cash benefits to finance the basic needs and foster investment in human capital to extremely poor households. These benefits are conditioned on certain behaviors, usually related to investments in nutrition, health, and education. (Calvo, 2011). As of 2014, there are 26 active CCT programs worldwide and numerous studies conducted on their CCT programs of Mexico, Brazil, Peru and Honduras.

Bolsa Família Program (BF), was innovatively launch decades ago in Brazil by President Lula, scaling up and coordinating scattered existing initiatives under a powerfully simple concept: trusting poor families with small cash transfers in return for keeping their children in school and attending preventive health care visits. It has been key to help Brazil more than halve its extreme poverty – from 9.7 to 4.3 % of the population. Most impressively, and in contrast to other countries, income inequality also fell markedly, to a Gini coefficient of 0.527 an impressive 15 % decrease. BF now reaches nearly 14 million households – 50 million people or around 1/4 of the population, and is widely seen as a global success story, a reference point for social policy around the world. (World Bank 2013)

Oportunidades (previously named Progresa) is a CCT program in Mexico that consists of three components: one related to education, one to health, and one to nutrition. Oportunidades transfers represent, on average, 25 percent of household income for Mexico’s rural poor and between 15 and 20 percent for the urban poor1. The program has expanded rapidly since its inception: starting from 140 thousand households in August 1997, it reached 5 million households at the beginning of 2008. (IFPRI, 2017).

Peru’s Juntos following the suit of other countries in Latin America, as the first cash transfer programme in Peru, Juntos is officially labeled as “The National Programme of Support to the Poorest” (Nicola Jones el. Al) Juntos targets poor families mainly in rural areas in Peru. The programme was established in 2005, initially serving 70 districts in the southern highlands. Since its launched it has covered 834,000 families in 1,142 districts (out of 1,943 districts in the country). It is estimated that 72 per cent of all potential household beneficiaries are already covered by the programme. Up to 2009, the programme made a monthly fixed transfer of 100 Nuevos Soles (approximate US$30, or around 10 per cent of poor households’ monthly consumption). In 2010, this became a bi-monthly transfer of 200 Nuevos Soles. (Alan Sanchez et. al, 2016)

Colombia’s Familias en Accion it has been observed that the communities in Cartagena that received coverage from the Familias en Acción exhibit a considerably higher level of community engagement in contrast to communities that do not receive coverage from the CCT program.

Although CCT globally has positive impact in alleviating poverty, there are some countries that is less successful in the progams implementation like Honduras’ Programa de Asignación Familiar, ASIGNACIÓN UNIVERSAL POR HIJO of Argentina and CCTs in Bolivia.

Honduras introduced the first iteration of its Programa de Asignación Familiar (“Family Allowance Program”) or PRAF-I, aiming to compensate the poorest families for losses incurred under structural adjustment policies. However, by the late 1990s, it had become clear that the program was not fulfilling its potential due to a lack of targeting and a lack of enforcement of the conditions for receiving a voucher. In 1998, the IDB negotiated a $45 million loan to Honduras to help initiative a new version of the program called PRAF-II. Yet missteps begot more missteps: although PRAF-II corrected some of its predecessor’s deficiencies, new design flaws created new and unanticipated problems, with mixed and even adverse consequences for beneficiaries’ health. Yet missteps begot more missteps: although PRAF-II corrected some of its predecessor’s deficiencies, new design flaws created new and unanticipated problems, with mixed and even adverse consequences for beneficiaries’ health. Although there were modest gains in the utilization of health services among transfer recipients, they saw no improvements in health outcomes such as stunting, anemia, and diarrhea. The PRAF experience shows how cash transfers can lead to unintended consequences, mainly related to poor design choices. Regular monitoring of program implementation is critical to avoid pitfalls and identify adverse effects early, so that program design can be modified and corrected. The Honduran story is one of learning while doing and constant iteration over two decades—while still achieving mixed results. (millionssaved.cgdev.org)

ASIGNACIÓN UNIVERSAL POR HIJO CASH TRANSFER PROGRAM of Argentina, it is believed that the program has had a mostly very small positive impact with increased school attendance of primary and secondary students and a reduction in the dropout rate, but there appears to be a negative impact in grade promotion outcomes. (Gastón Pierri et. Al, 2015)

Unlike to CCT programs elsewhere in Latin America, Bolivia’s CCT programs are universal and caters all regardless of the income level of the family rather than targeted to the poor. Bolivia’s has separate conditional cash transfer programs (CCTs), the Bono Juancito Pinto (2006) for schoolchildren and the Bono Juana Azurduy (2009) for expectant and new mothers and their infants and Bolivia also has a universalistic unconditional cash transfer program, Renta Dignidad (formerly Bonosol), which as of 2007 has given every Bolivian aged 60 or above about US $340 for those with no other pension income, and 75 percent of that amount for those with another pension. (J.M. McGuire, 2013)

In the Philippines, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) has initiated the CCT program. Dubbed “Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino,” it was pre-pilot tested in the municipalities of Sibagat and Esperanza in Agusan del Sur; the municipalities of Lopez Jaena and Bonifacio in Misamis Occidental, the Caraga Region; and the cities of Pasay and Caloocan3 upon the release of the amount of P50 Million Pesos under a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) issued by the Department of Budget and Management. On July 16, 2008, the DSWD issued Administrative Order No. 16, series of 2008 (A.O. No. 16, s. 2008),5 setting the implementing guidelines for the project renamed “Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program” (4Ps). (Pimentel in Supreme Court G. R. No. 195770 2012) From an initial coverage of 6,000 households in the pilot test, the program coverage was expanded to 666,000 households in response to the food and fuel crisis in 2008 and subsequent global economic crisis in 2009. (ADB 2011) In recent days 4Ps becomes a nationwide project operating in all the 17 regions in the Philippines, covering 79 provinces, 143 cities, and 1,484 municipalities.

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program was first introduced in 2007 as Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino, a CCT program,was tested in the municipalities of Sibagat and Esperanza in Agusan del Sur, the municipalities of Lopez Jaena and Bonifacio in Misamis Occidental, the CARAGA Region, and the cities of Pasay and Caloocan.

2008 marks the formal implementation of Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino and it was renamed as Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). The Department of Social Welfare and Development set guidelines and objectives implemented with the coordinated inter-agency network among the Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and the local government units (LGUs), given with specific functions in ensuring the efficiency of 4Ps. The target beneficiaries of 4Ps are poor families from the priority poor provinces and cities. An eligible household can have three (3) qualified children ranging from 0-14 years old. The selected families have 5 years maximum membership in the program. Currently, the maximum membership limit for the chosen household was terminated and the range of qualified children’s age is extended to 18 years old. (Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Operations Manual, 2012).
In 2014, Pantawid benefits were extended to high schools students aged 15-18. This is an important measure, as the Philippines has a major gap in high school completion rates between children of the poorest income quintile and the richest. By 17 years of age, 9 out of 10 of the richest children have completed high school, compared with just 3 in 10 of the poorest. Early results show the enrolment rate for children aged 12–15 was 6 percentage points higher among Pantawid households than non-Pantawid ones. (Bolt, 2016)

The 4Ps has been the proposed solution of the Philippine government to the intergenerational poverty cycle by providing immediate financial support to poor households, conditional upon investments in child education and health. The program has the primary objectives of social assistance and social development. Social assistance aims to promote short-term poverty alleviation through cash transfers, while social development, aims to mitigate the persistent poverty pattern through investments in human capital. Moreover, it aims to contribute to the fulfillment of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDG). These are to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality, reduce child mortality, and improve maternal health (Reyes et al., 2012).

The conditions set by the program are the prenatal and postnatal care for pregnant women, childbirth with the assistance health professionals, mandatory attendance in Family Development Sessions (FDS), regular check-ups and vaccines for children below 5 years old, semi-annual deworming for children between 6 and 14 years old, schooling of all children below 18 years of age and at least 85% school attendance (DSWD, 2009).

The program selected municipalities based on the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) Small Area Estimates that determine the poorest municipalities by their poverty incidence. Then, eligible beneficiaries are selected based on their characteristics. Households with income not greater than the provincial poverty line are considered. Moreover, households with children below 14 years of age or pregnant women are also taken into consideration for the eligibility of the beneficiaries. In addition, National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS – PR) is utilized based on proxy variables such as housing type, assets ownership, household head educational attainment, livelihood and access to water and sanitation facilities (DWSD, 2009).

Pantawid Pamilya is the first program to utilize the NHTS-PR. Implementation was conducted from June 2007 to January 2011, in three phases Fernandez 2012. The first phase covers the 20 poorest provinces and the municipalities that have a poverty incidence of 60% and above. This was followed by municipalities that have a poverty incidence between 50 to 59% and cities with ‘pockets of poverty’ areas. The final phase assessed households in municipalities with a poverty incidence of below 50%.5 Naturally, the expansion of Pantawid Pamilya areas mirrors these phases, as discussed in the succeeding subsections. A total of 10.909 million households were assessed, of which 5.255 million were identified as poor NHTO 2013. ARMM has the largest number of identified poor households at 531,526 or 64% of the total assessed households. It is followed by Region V with 461,242 (60%) and Region IV-A with 389,811 (43%) identified poor households.
Given the primary goal of human capital development and the design of the targeting mechanism, eligible households to the program are those that: (1) reside in areas selected for Pantawid Pamilya; (2) are identified as poor by the NHTS-PR; and (3) have children between the age of 0 and 14 years or have a pregnant household member. There are two cash grants provided to beneficiary households. The education grant is Php300 per month or Php3,000 per year for each school-age children 14 years old and below, for a maximum of 3 beneficiary children per household. The education cash grant is expected to cover expenses for sending children to school. Implicitly, it also serves to compensate the family for possible income loss due to school participation. The health grant is Php500 per month or Php6,000 per year. All beneficiary households are eligible for this grant, which is expected to help improve food consumption Pantawid Pamilya Operations Manual 2012. Hence, the maximum grant that households can receive is Php1,400 per month or Php15,000 per year.

The share of Pantawid Pamilya grants to total income ranges from 13 to 26 percent based on the distribution of beneficiaries by household composition Fernandez and Olfindo 2011. The poorest households (21% of total families) however, are those that have children 5 years old and below, which means that they are eligible only for the Php500 monthly health grant Fernandez and Olfindo 2011. The actual amount that beneficiary households are entitled to depends on compliance to program conditionalities. Teachers and local health workers monitor and verify the compliance of Pantawid Pamilya beneficiaries to the conditionalities. DSWD-hired “municipal links” work with local government units in the processing of compliance documents, synchronized with the release of cash pay-outs.

The implication of conditioning the grants on certain household actions means that beneficiaries must pay a certain price to continue receiving Pantawid grants. The price comes in the form of household time, money and effort spent in ensuring that children are present in school and that they get basic health care. The cost of educating children includes expenses for transportation, uniforms, school fees, and educational materials as well as the opportunity cost of the time children and parents spent in meeting the conditions of the grants. (Orbeta & Pacqueo 2016). In order to receive the abovementioned subsidies, all the succeeding conditions must be met by the household-beneficiaries. Pregnant women must avail pre- and post-natal care, and be attended during childbirth by a trained professional. Parents or guardians must attend the family development sessions, which include topics on responsible parenting, health, and nutrition. Children aged 0-5 must receive regular preventive health check-ups and vaccines. Children aged 6-14 must receive deworming pills twice a year. Lastly, children-beneficiaries aged 3-18 must enroll in school, and maintain an attendance of at least 85% of class days every month. (GOVPH 2017)

According to the DBM Presentation on the Country Report of RP in the 8th Asean and Japan High Official Meeting in 2010, 4Ps has made improvements in school attendance and use of health services in immunization coverage, child nutrition, household management of childhood illnesses and knowledge of maternal health services. It also cited that more students and parents attend extra-curricular activities. Students come to school with better clothing, project materials and food, making them more active in classrooms. Parents also participate more in school activities and child labor is reduced.

It was validated with the high compliance rates recorded for the months of March and April 2015. According to report 99.91% for the deworming of children aged 6-14; 98.99% for school attendance of children aged 6-14; 98.33% for school attendance of children in daycare aged 3-5; 97.05% for school attendance of children aged 15-18; 95.95% for health visits of pregnant women and children aged 0-5; and 94.84% for attendance in family development sessions. (GOVPH 2017)

The program has become one of the vastly scaled-up government programs in recent history. In less than ten years of implementation, the number of Pantawid Pamilya households has increased from 6,000 the government expanded the program in December 2016 to reach a total of 20 million Filipinos belonging to 4.4 million households. The program benefits about 20% of the population, the majority of the nation’s poor (World Bank IBDR.IDA, 2017)

There are only a few intensive evaluations done on the 4Ps. These evaluations showed ambiguous results. According to Chaudhury et al. (2013), 4Ps has increased school attendance among children and increased long-term nutritional status of 6-36 months old children. However, Reyes et al. (2012) noted that the impact of the 4Ps is limited to elevating the poorest of the poor status to the poverty threshold. Moreover, the Philippines was met with supply-side constraints, such as shortages of classrooms, when the 4Ps was implemented. Chaudhury et al (2013) also found discrepancies regarding the program execution and several socio-environmental factors that accounts for the different impacts of the 4Ps on different regions of the Philippines. Also, the different impacts of the 4Ps could be attributed to the accessibility of the beneficiaries to schools and health clinics (Chaudhury et al., 2013).

In the first semester of 2015, on the average, incomes of poor families were short by 29.0 percent of the poverty threshold. This means that on the average, an additional monthly income of Php 2,649 is needed by a poor family with five members in order to move out of poverty in the first semester of 2015.

In recent reports, poverty incidence among Filipinos according to PSA in 2016, based on the T-Test that was used to determine the statistical significance of the decrease in the poverty incidence among population at 90% level of significance, the results of the 2012 and 2015 First Semester Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) does not indicate significant change from first semester 2012 to 2015. Based on the T-Test at 90% level of significance, the subsistence incidence among population from the results of the 2012 and 2015 First Semester FIES does not indicate significant change from first semester 2012 to 2015. In the span of three years results shows that 4Ps has minimal effect in eradicating poverty among the lives of the poor members of the society, but still the government is hopeful that in due time this will help reduce poverty and inequality.

The 4Ps is NOT the only program in the anti-poverty strategy of the government, yet it’s quite possibly the most important component. The reason is that this program attacks one of the root causes of poverty—weak education, health and other human development characteristics that disadvantage a poor person. No amount of job creation will employ and lift out of poverty millions of under-skilled and unhealthy citizens. No business would get into such an enterprise, and no government can sustain economic growth and job creation on such a weak foundation. Therefore, human capital build-up is, first and foremost, the key ingredient in the strategy. What is often poorly understood about the 4Ps program is that it’s less focused on adults, and more focused on the next generation. The economic pay-off from these investments, therefore, will take some years to fully manifest—in the form of more educated and healthy citizens and more productive workers. (Mendoza 2013)

4Ps declared aim was to interrupt the transmission of poverty from one generation to another by investing in the education and health of children from poor families. 4Ps is using Household Targeting System or “LISTAHANAN” as a mean of identifying the poorest of the poor. (Associate Professor of Economics at Asian Institute of Management 2017) The Listahanan targeting system has steadily improved. The latest rigorous impact evaluation in 2014 shows Pantawid is on track to make children of poor families healthier and keep them in school for longer. Cash grants have helped to bring about near-universal enrolment of elementary age children (6–11 years old). Pantawid mothers are more likely to seek pre-and-post-natal care and deliver babies in health facilities. Child labor among participating households has decreased by an average of 7 days per month. (Bolt, 2016)

The loan covenant of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program with the World Bank is set to end by the year 2019. These loan covenant with the ADB costs US400 million. According to the then Sec. Taguiwalo of DSWD, categorically there is no decision to end the 4Ps program by the 2019, she also said that the DSWD continues to conduct its review of the program, its implementation on the ground, its financing, and its over-all management. The review program called “Kamustahan” and the recertification process continue to be implemented. (Pantawid 2017)

As another leap or the 4Ps program, (DSWD) is set to release rice subsidy in the form of cash amounting to P600 per month to the beneficiaries of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) starting this March of 2017. Around 4.4 million households are expected to receive the additional grant. The rice subsidy hopes to address the hunger problem that these poor households continue to battle. The President wants that the poor households are able to eat everyday. The additional cash grant as Rice Assistance/Subsidy is included as part of the P72,115,230 cash grant budget approved for calendar year 2017. (Pantawid 2017)

4Ps as promising as it also has its disadvantages that may encumber its helpful benefits. One of the most crucial characteristic of the 4Ps and other CCT programs implemented in other countries is its being a ‘demand-side’ intervention instead of being a ‘supply-side’ intervention. That is, in order to be considered as a beneficiary of the program, one must concede with the government’s demands and conditionalities (Coady & Parker, 2002). It can be notably argued since the conditions concerning education and health services where the beneficiaries obligate to avail the education and health services system instead of expanding the education and health systems in order to reach them.

We have noted that poverty in the country is not only caused by the lack of economic resources, but also with socio-economic and political factors that prevent the equality and distribution of resources. Although the 4Ps aims to provide the poor with the education which is, otherwise, inaccessible, it does not directly answer the socio-economic and political problems that are the primary cause of poverty.

In the case of the 4Ps in the Philippines, it does not answer the issues regarding the political and economic elite families. And poverty can only be totally alleviated if there are programs that could target its roots. The 4Ps will also encounter some difficulties in achieving support from the other social classes, mainly because it does not benefit middle-income groups which have also been steadily affected by limited universal services and decreases in employment (Cuesta, 2007). These middle-income groups are also suffering from issues of poverty and limited access to educational and health benefits but are not included in the target population of the 4Ps. The 4Ps is programmed to help only the extremely poor.

Financial resources are another major disadvantage of the 4Ps implementation, is that it requires a huge amount of finance which we do not have at the present. The 4Ps is a loan driven program, much of the funds constituting the conditional cash grants given to beneficiaries are generated from loans abroad, particularly from the United States. By the tail-end of August 2010, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved a US$400 million loan specifically for the 4Ps which will run from 2011 to 2014. This comprises 45.2 per cent of the total cost of US$884.2 million, where US$484 million serves as the government’s counterpart. Having ADB’s US$400 million in addition to the World Bank’s US$405 million, makes two-thirds of the whole 4Ps from 2009 to 2014 comprised of loans (Somera, 2010, p. 6).

Despite the positive outcomes of the 4Ps, the program has not yet gained applause from several groups and public officials, the contention comes from several points of view hitting several aspects of the program. An article entitled „Warning Raised vs. Gov?t „Dole-out?? by L. Fernandez in the „Philippine Daily Inquirer? on September 15, 2010 reports that Representative Milagros Magsaysay of Zambales proposed that the government instead divert its resources to supporting skills development so that the poor will become more qualified for work. He further added that the program inherent exposure to partisan politics may undermine the efforts for effective selection of beneficiaries and instead be an opportunity for political elites to redirect resources toward rewarding their political subordinates. This is very possible considering the political environment the Philippines has. (Fernandez, 2010)

While 4Ps as a relief measure is undisputed, its impact on overall poverty is still debated. While the international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the ADB support the popularization of the program as a poverty reduction tool, and the current government placed it as the center-piece of social protection policies, the representative of the Akbayan partylist, Walden Bello, clears that the program should not be treated as a poverty reduction program but rather as a containment tool. This, however, does not mean killing the program. Rep. Bello follows “I would see CCTs as a stopgap measure, to keep millions above the water line until reforms show results,” (Bello, November 3, 2010).

The civil society has also joined the heated debate on the issue of expanding 4Ps. The Social Watch Philippines released its position on the controversial expansion of the 4Ps through a paper that hit several aspects of the program based on their assessment. The first three points are of greater significance to the core issues of 4Ps. First, the 4Ps has a limited range of targeted vulnerabilities. Because it covers only mothers and children 14 years old and below, it ignores the social protection needs of other vulnerable groups such as the persons with disabilities and the elderly. The need to view 4Ps as part of a web of development programs especially that its conditionalities are tied to supply-side factors (Social Watch Philippines’ Position Paper on the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), October 4, 2010). For mothers to be able to avail of maternal check ups there must be adequate medical services at their disposal. Likewise, for children to be able to experience early improvement in literacy there must be enough support for education. Son (2008) admits that conditional cash transfers assume that “the supply of social services for education and health is in place,” (Son, 2008: p3). Thus it is imperative that the government, while spending a sizable amount of its budget on conditional cash transfers must also invest in social services tied to the program.

The perceptions that the 4Ps is a dole out and that it is an insufficient poverty solution which is probably the most popular criticisms of the program, with the numerous reports and studies of the implementing agencies government agencies, and non-government organization and counter parts showing different results drawing more attention to the public. There are a lot of success stories been published and written on how 4Ps has significantly change the lives of the beneficiaries but the biggest question still remains unsolved. Poverty is still rampant, can Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program do the job of eradicating poverty, does five years support enough as it was stated in the guidelines that families will received subsidy from the government for 5 years, targeting to build strong education and health foundation of the next generation (GOV.PH 2017), would these 4Ps deliver, we can only hope that huge effect in solving poverty is yet to be realize.

Research Design

The study will use the descriptive method of research to assess the impact and effectiveness of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program in the City of Lipa. Descriptive research is concerned with the description of data and characteristics about a population. The goal is the acquisition of factual, accurate, and systematic data that can be used in averages, frequencies and similar statistical calculations. Descriptive studies seldom involve experimentation, as they are more concerned with naturally occurring phenomena than with the observation of controlled situations (Valdez, 2014).

Participants of the Study

Respondents of the study will be members of 4Ps in five (5) highly populated barangays in the City of Lipa namely; Banay-Banay (West District), Balintawak (North District), Brgy. 7 (Urban District), Sabang (East District), and Sampaguita based on the PSA Survey and the employees of the City Social Welfare and Development Office. Participants will be purposively selected from the different barangays. The Persons-in charge in the implementation of the 4Ps program will also be interviewed for additional information. This not limited to the City Social Welfare and Development Office, but also the 4Ps Regional Satellite Offices and the 4Ps DSWD Office – Lipa City.

Data Gathering Instrument

The researcher developed a self-structured questionnaire based on the objectives of the study.

Data Gathering Procedure

As an initial step, the researcher made a letter request addressed to the Dr. Leticia A. Diockno, DSWD R4A Regional director to allow the gathering of related data from the Regional Office in support to the research study including, but not limited to, the following offices; DSWD R4A, DSWD Regional Satellite Office, CSWDO Lipa City and the DSWD 4Ps Office.

Letters of request will also be forwarded to the barangay chairpersons of the five identified highly populated barangays for the permission to conduct a one on one interview using the self-structured questionnaire with the certain number of respondents. The number of respondents will proportionately be distributed in relation to the barangay population. The total population of the identified five (5) barangays shall be the basis in computing the number of respondents and derive a formula using statistical tools.

The study will be supported with the local and national Administrative Orders, Memorandum Circulars, Internet and News clippings for the initial data gathering.

Data Analysis

The data to be gathered will be tallied and interpreted using descriptive statistics. Frequency, Percentage, Weighted mean will be use to assess the effectiveness in the implementation of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program of the City of Lipa.

Lyceum of the Philippines University
Graduate School
Master in Public Administration
Dear Respondents,
The undersigned is a Master in Public Administration Student of the Lyceum of the Philippines University – Batangas City and is presently conducting a research entitled EFFECTIVENESS OF PANTAWID PAMILYANG PILIPINO PROGRAM (4Ps) IN LIPA CITY in partial fulfillment of the requirements in his course. Respectfully notifying you that your area has been selected as our respondent. Below are the statements that will guide in your assessments of the variables under study.
In this regard, the researcher would like to request your help to answer the following questions as honest and appropriate as you can. Rest assured that whatever information you have shared will be kept confidential.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
The Researcher:

Survey Questionnaire
Effectiveness of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program in the City of Lipa

Name (Optional):

Directions: Please check (/) the item which you think corresponds to your best choice of answer. (Pakitsekan (/) ang aytem na sa palagay mo ay tumutugon sa iyong pinakatamang sagot.)

PART I Personal Information

Name of Barangay
Balintawak ( )
Sabang ( )
Sampaguita ( )
Banay-Banay ( )
Brgy. 07 ( )

60 and above ( )
46-59 ( )
31-45 ( )
19-30 ( )
18 and below ( )

Male ( )
Female ( )

Civil status:
Single ( )
Married ( )
Others Please Specify

Educational Attainment:
College Graduate ( )
High School Graduate ( )
Elementary ( )
Others Please Specify


Monthly Income:
Php below 5, 000.00 ( )
6,000 – 15,000.00 ( )
16,000 – 25,000.00 ( )
above 26,000.00 ( )

Number of Children 0 – 2 ( )
3 – 5 ( )
6 and more

Part II:

I. Assessment on the level of effectiveness in the attainment of the goals of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.

Direction : Check on the appropriate box on the right your assessment level of effectiveness in the attainment of the goals of the Pantawid Pamilyang PilipinoProgram

Very Effective – VE (4)
Effective – E (3)
Less Effective – LE (2)
Not Effective – NE (1)

Programs VE
(4) E
(3) LE
(2) NE
Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger
1. The family receives P500.00 peso Health and Nutrition Cash Grant regularly
2. The children age 3-18 years enrolled in school receives P300.00 Education Cash Grant regularly. (Maximum of 3 child per household)
Achieving Universal Primary Education
1. Enroll in elementary and secondary schools and maintain a class attendance rate of at least 85% per month for children aged 6 to 14 years old
2. Enroll in Day Care Program or Kindergarten and maintain a class attendance rate of at least 85% per month for Children aged 3-5 years old
Promoting Gender Equality
1. Attend monthly Family Development Sessions (lectures on nutrition sanitation, responsible parenthood, among others)
Reducing Child Mortality
1. Complete all required vaccinations (BCG, OPV, DPT, Hepatitis, and Measles) on the prescribed schedule (For children 0-5 year old)
2. Monthly weight monitoring and nutrition counseling for children aged 0-23 months old.
3. Bi-monthly weight monitoring for 24 months to 72 mos. Old.
4. Take deworming pills twice a year (For children 6-14 years old)
Improving Maternal Health
1. One pre-natal consultation each trimester
2. At least one blood pressure and weight monitoring measurement in each trimester
3. At least one Breastfeeding Counseling Session prior to delivery and within the first six weeks after childbirth
4. At least one Family Planning Counseling Session prior to delivery and within the first six weeks after childbirth
5. Delivery by a skilled health professional
6. At least 1 post-natal care w/in the first 6 weeks after childbirth

PART III. Identifying factors contributory to effectiveness of 4Ps Program
Strongly Agree – SA (4)
Agree – A (3)
Disagree – D (2)
Strongly Disagree – SD (1)

Factors SA
(4) A
(3) D
(2) SD
A. Organizational Factors
1. Planning – To properly plan and execute 4Ps goal and objectives.
2. Communication – To have an effective means of information dissemination of all the facts about the 4Ps to both members and non-members of the programme.
3. Motivation – To have an intense drive of the implementer in to achieving 4Ps goal or objective.
4. Human Capital – To be equipped with well trained and skilled workforce to able to successfully oversee and manage the performance and progress of 4Ps in line with achieving its goal and objectives.
5. Technology – To have an updated technology system to properly monitor 4Ps beneficiaries and have an easier way of identifying and targeting new beneficiaries.
6. Finance – To have an efficient financial resources and budget allocation to realize 4Ps goals and objectives.
7. Policy – The policies should be properly formulated and guidelines should be written down to ensuring that 4Ps goals and objectives has been undertaken according to the laid down procedure.
B. Social Factors
1. Beliefs and Norms – The views and got feel of the society about 4Ps should be accounted for.
2. Signs and Symbols – To study the understandings, reactions, interpretations and actions of the society towards implementation of 4Ps.
3. Cooperation – To formulate ways on how to overcome resistances and win the support of the majority toward achieving 4Ps goals.
4. History and Religion – To know the social foundation of the 4Ps beneficiaries.
5. Attitude and Mindset – To evaluate the individuality and character of the beneficiaries, implementor, policy maker and the society.
Political Factor
1. Power and Authority – To win the approval of the majority of leaders as they have the ability to influence decisions and the right to impose policies in attaining 4Ps goal and objectives.
2. Strong Political Will – There is a need for a strong political driving force to impose strict implementation and initiate changes in the 4Ps program.
Geographic Factors
1. Demographics – To know the ambiance and situation of areas of implementation of 4Ps.
2. Human Environment – The realize the pattern and size of population of the target location