Assessment of the Sustainable Livelihood Program

deviations from the design to the actual implementation of the program and whether these deviations, if any, have been...

0 downloads 59 Views 2MB Size
Philippine Institute for Development Studies Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas

Assessment of the Sustainable Livelihood Program - Employment Facilitation Process Marife M. Ballesteros et al. DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2016-13

The PIDS Discussion Paper Series constitutes studies that are preliminary and subject to further revisions. They are being circulated in a limited number of copies only for purposes of soliciting comments and suggestions for further refinements. The studies under the Series are unedited and unreviewed. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. Not for quotation without permission from the author(s) and the Institute.

April 2016 For comments, suggestions or further inquiries please contact: The Research Information Staff, Philippine Institute for Development Studies 18th Floor, Three Cyberpod Centris - North Tower, EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, 1100 Quezon City, Philippines Telephone Numbers: (63-2) 3721291 and 3721292; E-mail: [email protected] Or visit our website at http://www.pids.gov.ph

Assessment of the Sustainable Livelihood Program - Employment Facilitation Process Marife Ballesteros, Tatum Ramos, Jasmine Magtibay, Aniceto Orbeta, Gerald Daval-Santos, Ann Jillian Adona, and Kathrina Gonzales

Discussion Paper April 2016

Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. iv I. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Study Approach and Methodology ...................................................................................................... 2 III. SLP-Theory of Change ......................................................................................................................... 3 IV. Implementation Description and Assessment .................................................................................. 11 V. Sustainable Livelihood Program Outcomes ....................................................................................... 29 VI. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 36 References............................................................................................................................................. 41 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................. 44

Tables Table 1. Sites Selected for Field visits by Type of Employer .................................................................... 2 Table 2. SLP Timeline ............................................................................................................................. 11 Table 3. Criteria for Area and Participant Identification ........................................................................ 13 Table 4. Training Costs: School of Knowledge for Industrial Labor Leadership and Service (SKILLS) Cebu ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 5. Percentage of 4Ps Families Served Through the SLP as of December 2015 ............................ 29 Table 6. Number of Families Served per Track from January 2011 to December 2015 ........................ 30 Table 7. Types of SLP Partnerships Developed ...................................................................................... 31 Table 8. Distribution of 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries (Individuals) Per Employer Type and Occupation Group .................................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 9. Regional Distribution of Families Served through the PEAF and PEAF Utilization ................... 33 Figures Figure 1. The Graduation Into Sustainable Livelihoods Approach ........................................................... 5 Figures 2a & 2b. Results Chain of the Sustainable Livelihood Program ................................................. 10 Figure 3a & 3b. Intervention Identification Decision Tree ..................................................................... 14 Boxes Box 1. The Chilean Social Protection System ........................................................................................... 6 Box 2. Labor Programs of Partner NGAs ............................................................................................... 22 Box 3. Labor Market Programs Implemented by Other NGAs ...................................................................

Annexes Annex 1. CGAP-Ford Foundation Graduation Pilots (2006 to 2014)...................................................... 44 ii

Annex 2. Sample Barangay Ranking Matrix ........................................................................................... 46 Annex 3. Participant Profiling Template ................................................................................................ 48 Annex 4. PEAF Primary Purpose/Coverage ............................................................................................ 48 Annex 5. Regional Distribution of 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries (Individuals) Per Employer Type and Occupation Group ................................................................................................................................. 49 Annex 6. Best EF Models ....................................................................................................................... 53

iii

Abstract The Sustainable Livelihood Program - Employment Facilitation Track (SLP-EF Track) is a scheme that facilitates the employment of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) beneficiaries. The SLP-EF Track has much potential to bring the 4Ps beneficiaries closer to reaching the poverty threshold since getting employed would provide additional income to the beneficiaries on top of the incentives provided to them by the 4Ps. For this to be realized, however, the SLP-EF Track would have to be effective in targeting beneficiaries and in identifying employment partners for 4Ps. There is also need for the Department of Social Welfare and Development to reassess its role in employment facilitation and to effectively link the 4Ps to other labor employment programs of government.

Keywords: livelihood program, employment, poverty, Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

iv

I. Introduction The Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) is a social program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for families and communities. It is currently being developed as the graduation program for beneficiaries of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), a conditional cash transfer (CCT) program of the Philippine government. The SLP, which was initiated in January 2011, offers two tracks to its target beneficiaries: (1) the Microenterprise Development (MD) track and the (2) Employment Facilitation (EF) track. The MD Track uses the microcredit scheme of the old SEA-K Program, wherein participants are provided assistance in the establishment and expansion of their microenterprise. On the other hand, the EF Track, which had not been available in the old SEA-K Program, facilitates the employment of participants through job matchings and skills trainings. Participation in either or both of the two SLP tracks would link the 4Ps families to income-generating opportunities to enable them to sustain their economic development and thus transition from survival to self-sufficiency. As of December 2015, around 22% of the total number of families enrolled in the 4Ps as of August 26, 2015 has been served in the SLP. Out of the 963,978 4Ps families served in the SLP, 86% (830,638 4Ps families) have been served through the Microenterprise Development (MD) Track while only 14% (133,340 4Ps families) have been served through the Employment Facilitation (EF) Track. The very low output record on employment does not reflect the labor force data showing that more than half of our labor force (57.5%)1 consists of wage and salary workers and only less than one-third are self-employed. Meanwhile, efforts to develop the Employment Facilitation Track for the poor are being heightened because of the lower risk that is associated with employment as compared with microenterprise. It must be noted, however, that in order to improve the EF Track, it is necessary to have a closer look at the program design and implementation. This study aims to assess the implementation of the EF Track and determine the primary reasons for the low takeup rate. It looks into the design and service delivery of SLP and the partnerships between the SLP staff and the other stakeholders and reviews outcomes of program in terms of the level and nature of employment provided to targeted beneficiaries.2 It also looks into deviations from the design to the actual implementation of the program and whether these deviations, if any, have been made in order to achieve the same outcomes given contextual differences among localities. The paper is organized as follows. Part II presents the study approach and methodology. Part III discusses the SLP theory of change using the graduation model and labor market programs framework. Part IV describes and assesses the SLP-EF implementation process. Part V examines the SLP-EF outcomes. Part VI concludes the discussion and makes recommendations.

1

PSA Labor Force Survey April 2014 round A study on the Microenterprise Development Track of the program had previously been conducted by Ballesteros et al.; the results had been published in 2015. 2

II. Study Approach and Methodology A number of activities have been conducted by the research team in evaluating the SLP-EF Track process. One of the activities conducted was a desk review which is critical in any process evaluation as it would provide details regarding the design of a program. The research team looked into related literature such as documents on similar programs and experiences of other countries. Relevant documents, including the field operations manual (FOM), have also been collected from the DSWD. 3 Secondary data analysis was also conducted in order to determine the coverage of the program. SLP data, and accomplishment and monitoring reports were requested from the Sustainable Livelihood Program-National Project Management Office. SLP data forwarded to the research team on August 2015 include a partial/incomplete SLP-NPMO database of beneficiaries. This dataset indicates the employment details of the beneficiaries. The SLP-NPMO database indicates that SLP-EF Track beneficiaries are employed by the national government (NG), local government units (LGUs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector.4 The presence of these various types of employers is the basis for the selection of sites that had been visited by the research team. Field visits had been conducted in Marikina City in NCR and in the provinces of Pangasinan, Masbate, Cebu, Compostela Valley, and Davao City.5 In each of these selected sites, at least three types of these employers are found – national government agencies (NGAs), local government units (LGUs) and the private sector (see Table 1). The field visits were conducted in order to validate whether the program design is being implemented on the ground as designed. Deviations from the program design were noted and assessed whether they would still likely lead to a similar outcomes as envisioned in the original framework. Additionally, implementation variations among the visited sites were also documented. Table 1. Sites Selected for Field visits by Type of Employer (in number of Beneficiaries (Individuals)) Province/City NCR Marikina LUZON Pangasinan (Region I) Masbate (Region V) VISAYAS Cebu (Region VII) MINDANAO Compostela Valley (Region XI) Davao City (Region XI)

NGA

LGU

Private

NGO

Unidentified

Total

8

8

74

-

11

101

139 288

6 623

262 3,621

1 -

99 1

507 4533

55

27

162

1

22

267

140 196

570 18

202 370

771 104

4 1

1687 689

3

The SLP Field Operations Manual used is as of March 18, 2015. The SLP FOM 2015 will be referred to as FOM hereon. 4 Database forwarded to the research team on August 2015 5 The research team used the raw monitoring data from the DSWD as basis for the selection of sites. The monitoring data was forwarded to the research team on August 2015. It is partial/incomplete as DSWD is currently reconstructing their 2011-2015 database.

2

Source: Data adapted from the Sustainable Livelihood Program – National Project Management Office Note. *The monitoring data was forwarded to the research team on August 2015. It is partial/incomplete as DSWD is currently reconstructing their 2011-2015 database. *The research team categorized the employers from the database into the following groups: NGA, LGU, Private, NGO, and Unidentified. The unidentified employers are those which the research team could not determine the type of and include those with vague inputs in the database.

In each of the provinces/municipalities visited, a focus group discussion (FGD) was conducted with at least ten 4Ps-SLP participants per province/municipality.6 The participants were asked on their experiences and as to which aspects of the program need improvement. In each of the sites, key informant interviews (KIIs) were also conducted with some of the provincial coordinators and field project development officers (city/municipal PDOs). The field PDOs were asked how the program is implemented from the selection of participants to the monitoring of outputs and outcomes. KIIs were also conducted with the different types of SLP employers.7 Questions were focused on their participation to the SLP and on the performance of the EF Track beneficiaries as employees. Furthermore, KIIs were conducted with the other stakeholders such as Public Employment Service Offices (PESOs), tech-voc institutions, and manpower service providers. Among these respodents, questions were focused on their coordination with the DSWD, the services that they offer, and their assessment on the SLP-EF Track beneficiaries and/or participants.

III. SLP-Theory of Change A. Graduation Model In the fight against poverty, graduation models are gradually taking stage. These models involve a series of interventions that, when provided successively, are expected to reduce poverty. Generally, the impact evaluation studies that have been conducted on them have found initial positive outcomes, harbouring more interest from poverty reduction advocates. One complex graduation model is the Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction: Targeting Ultra-Poor (TUP) model of BRAC, which utilizes a ladderized design (asset transfers, stipend, training, healthcare, and community mobilization) for the graduation of ultra-poor beneficiaries in a span of two years.8 BRAC’s activities prior to the creation of the TUP have only benefitted the “middle” poor and not those who need the assistance the most (BRAC, 2013). The TUP model was then created in 2002 out of the initiative to help the ultra-poor in Bangladesh to graduate into a more stable economic and social situation; the ultra-poor are defined as households (1) with less than ten decimals of land; (2) which get their income from being beggars and day 6

*In Marikina, around six out of fourteen of the interviewees are MD Track participants. In the other sites, all of the participants interviewed are EF Track participants.*In Compostela Valley, one of the contacted participants was not able to attend the focus group discussion. *In Cebu City, four of the interviewed participants are from Negros Oriental. *In Davao City, five of the interviewed participants are from Davao del Sur. 7 NGAs, LGUs, and private sector representatives were interviewed; the research team did not get a chance to interview NGO employers/partners of the SLP. 8 Currently, BRAC does not represent an acronym. Previously, it stood for “Bangladesh Rehabilitation Assistance Committee” and then as “Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee.”

3

laborers, and/or from domestic aid; (3) with no productive assets; (4) whose school-aged children take up paid work; and (5) without an active male adult household member (Yasmin, n.d.).9 BRAC targets these individuals through: (1) geographical area selection and (2) household selection. The geographical area selection involves identifying areas and specific villages with high ultra-poverty incidents, and conducting a survey. Meanwhile, the household selection involves a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) where the communities identify its poorest members, which is validated through the conduct of a door-to-door mini survey. Selected households are provided with weekly income stipend, asset transfers (e.g. cow, goat, etc.), training to capacitate them in increasing the asset’s value, healthcare, and community mobilization.10 The households are also coached weekly by BRAC program organizers in health and financial aspects. The final months of the program are allotted to confidence-building. In 2015, a total of 1.6 million households in Bangladesh have been reached through the TUP program (Balboni et al., 2015). Overall, the initial outputs and outcomes of the TUP Program based on impact assessment are positive. Rabbani et al. (2006) have found that compared to non-participant ultra-poor households, the selected TUP households are: (1) more likely to have more assets regardless of those provided by BRAC, (2) more likely to have taken a loan, (3) more likely to be correctly informed about laws compared with non-participant households, (4) with larger incomes, (5) with fewer food shortages, and (6) almost certainly with savings.11 Likewise, Balboni et al. (2015) have found that there is an increase in earnings by 37% and an improvement in the consumption, savings, and asset accumulation of the targeted households. They add that TUP benefits are 5.4 times larger than its costs, the rate of return ranging from 16% to 23%. The TUP model’s promising design has caught the attention of many organizations; this includes the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) and the Ford Foundation. The CGAP and the Ford Foundation collaborated with each other in 2006, which resulted in the creation of the Graduation Program that funds pilot projects in different countries. They have been attempting to replicate the TUP experience in other contexts (BRAC, 2013). Typical project collaborators are (1) financial service providers (often a microfinance institution), (2) livelihoods promoters or providers (often an NGO), and (3) health services providers (El-Zoghbi & de Montesquiou, with Hashemi, 2009). Between 2006 and 2014, CGAP and Ford Foundation pilot tested the Graduation Approach at 10 sites in eight countries namely Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Pakistan, Peru, and Yemen (see Annex 1). El-Zoghbi (2009) notes that the graduation model requires careful sequencing of development services, regular interaction between the program staff and the participant households, and close monitoring (see Figure 1). The five components of the assistance are: (1) consumption support, (2) savings, (3) technical skills training, (4) asset transfer, and (5) life skills coaching. Consumption support involves the provision of a small cash stipend or foodstuff which would allow the beneficiaries to have a better hold on their daily survival. The beneficiaries are also encouraged to save either through self-help groups or financial services providers. Additionally, they will be trained on how to handle an asset and a business. They will be choosing an asset (e.g. livestock) from a menu which is an output of a market analysis conducted by the Graduation Program staff. Additionally, the households would be visited weekly by the program staff for coaching and monitoring (de Montesquiou & Sheldon, with DeGiovanni & Hashemi, 2014).12 9

As seen in Emran et al. (2009), BRAC defines the ultra-poor as those “not being able to meet even the barest of the basic needs.” 10 Balboni et al. (2015) state that the value of livestock received by each beneficiary totals to $140 which, they say, is nearly twice the baseline wealth of the ultra-poor and a lot larger than what the households can access via informal credit markets. 11 The enumerated findings are only some of those written in the impact assessment by Rabbani et al. (2006). ***Rabbani et al. (2006) used 2002 to 2005 panel data. 12 Life skills coaching includes lessons on business planning and money management.

4

Meanwhile, the participating organizations would have annual consortium meetings that would allow them to learn from each other’s experiences. Contextual differences, nevertheless, are not to be forgetten. As de Montesquiou & Sheldon, with DeGiovanni & Hashemi (2014) note, the graduation programs prioritize, sequence, and shape the components based on the needs of the poorest and the market situation in the various program sites.

Figure 1. The Graduation Into Sustainable Livelihoods Approach Source. de Montesquiou & Sheldon, with DeGiovanni & Hashemi (2014)

B. Labor Market Programs and Social Safety Net Programs Aside from the already mentioned graduation policies programs, there are those which integrate labor market policies (LMPs) with social safety net programs (SSNPs) ideally to reduce poverty (see Box 1 for example).13 The combined effects of the SSNPs and LMPs to poverty in the long run are yet to be seen. Nevertheless, it can be said that the added value of LMPs to SSNPs could bring them even closer to reaching the poverty threshold. Getting employed would provide additional income to the beneficiaries on top of the incentives provided to them by the social safety net policies (e.g. cash grants). Additionally, the LMPs could lessen the risk of beneficiaries being too dependent on the incentives provided by the SSNPs. The key, therefore, is to find effective labor market policies which would result in an increase in employment among SSNP beneficiaries.

13

Labor market programs that are referred to, hereon, are those which link individuals to jobs or increase their earnings.

5

Box 1. The Chilean Social Protection System Chile Solidario Chile Solidario is a social protection system that was introduced to Chileans in 2002 and was legally institutionalized in 2004. The system had been targeting extremely poor beneficiaries using a proxy means test called Ficha CAS until 2006, then switched to an instrument called the Ficha de Proteccion Social which measures the households’ capacity to generate income and their vulnerability to shocks (Carneiro et al., 2009). The system requires the families to sign a contract with conditions they must meet in exchange of the assistance to be provided by the Chilean government in order to improve their welfare. The conditions in the contract are based on seven different dimensions: (1) identification, (2) education, (3) employment, (4) income, (5) housing, (6) health, and (7) family dynamics. It has four components: (1) psycho-social support, (2) protection bonus for the family, (3) guaranteed cash subsidies, and (4) preferential access to social services. Psychosocial support includes home visits by program staff who would assist the families in identifying and solving the issues that would hinder them from optimizing their situation in terms of the seven dimensions. The visits would last for 24 months with a decreasing intensity. The protection bonus that is intented to cover the transaction costs of accessing supply side services would also last for 24 months with the amount of the grant declining over time. The families are also guaranteed with the cash subsidies offered by the money transfer schemes they are entitled to, which include: (1) Subsidio Unico Familiar for families with children below 18 years old, pregnant women, and mentally disabled and disabled members; (2) Subsidio Agua Potable, a water subsidy program for low-income families; and (3) Pensión Asistencial for people over 65 years old, disabled household heads, and people with mental disabilities. Finally, Chile Solidario participants are given priority access should they apply to programs focused on employment assistance, skills development, etc.

A number of labor market policies and programs are currently being implemented across countries. These policies and programs could become venues to increase employment among the poor and to at least move their incomes closer to reaching the poverty threshold.14 An example would be policies that provide job matching assistance. This kind of policy aims to put ease in the process of looking for employees from the perspective of the employers, and in the process of searching for jobs from the perspective of the jobseekers. This policy could be in the form of job search assistance. One program which provides such assistance is the British Jobcentre Plus which was first introduced in October 2001. The program was envisioned to integrate the services for people who are in need of both social security benefits and employment assistance. It has an IT system called the Labor Market System (LMS) which advertises job vacancies and which can be accessed by beneficiaries through touchscreen computer terminals and the Jobcentre Plus website (Almeida et al., 2012). Labor market policy on job matching may also be in the form of career guidance counseling services. The U.S. Department of Labor has been administering the Job Corps which offers career counseling services among others (job search assistance, training, placement services, etc.) to individuals aged 16 to 24. Those who enroll in the program receive career counseling and transition support for up to 12 months following their graduation. Job matching services may also be in the form of job clubs, also known as job search support groups. Job clubs create networks of jobseekers that would allow members to share experiences and information on available opportunities. An example is the Jersey Job Club program which was 14

The examples on labor market programs provided here are not necessarily targeted to the people under social safety net programs.

6

launched by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development in 2012. The Jersey Job Club is a venue for the jobseekers to meet each other and create a network. Besides strengthening connectivity among jobseekers, the program also makes available a career development professional to help the jobseekers develop a strategy in his job search. It also conducts workshops on how to write a résumé, how to do well on interviews, etc. The jobseekers are eligible to use the program’s resources for six months. Those who do not get employed within that period may be referred to more intensive assistance services (New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, n.d.). Job matching services are also extended through job fairs. Some labor departments in various parts of the world (e.g. Philippines, United States of America, etc.) invite employers and jobseekers to attend job fairs in order to facilitate job matching. Overall, there are a number of labor market programs under the job matching category. Brown & Köttl (2012) note that in general these programs are highly cost-effective and improve the labor market matching, but they may not have much impact during recessions and their effectiveness is confined only in the short-run. Other examples of labor market policies are wage and hiring subsidies. Wage and hiring subsidies are currently being implemented in different countries (e.g. South Africa’s youth wage subsidy, United States of America’s Work Opportunity Tax Credit, etc.). The subsidies are expected to entice employers to hire new workers. Almeida et al. (2014), however, note that the wage subsidies are not likely to be an effective instrument in creating jobs in developing countries. Nevertheless, first-time job seekers or those who have gone through long periods of unemployment or inactivity could benefit from the subsidies in terms of gaining skills, work experience, and improvements in employability (Almeida et al., 2014). There are also labor market programs that provide incentives for self-employment or microenterprise jobs. Programs geared towards the provision of these incentives extend at least some of the following: subsidies, grants, training, counseling, etc. An example of such a program is the Microenterprise Development Program (MEDEP). The MEDEP was initiated in July 1998 by the Government of Nepal (GoN) with the assistance of the United Nations Development Program. It targets families living below the poverty line. Its activities include entrepreneurship development, market study, skills development, microcredit, access to appropriate technology and business counseling linkages to market, and development of the subcontracting system (Bajracharya & Joshi, 201215). As of September 2014, MEDEP has created 69,803 microentrepreneurs and 74,105 sustainable jobs (GoN, 2014). Dar and Tzannatos (1999), and Morrison (2006), however, note that there is still a low takeup on the incentives provided by microenterprise programs in general.16 Dar and Tzannatos (1999) add that the failure rate of the businesses is quite high. They further note that success is more likely with particular groups such as women and older individuals; Morrison (2006) also notes the positive impacts seen with older and better-educated workers. Public works programs have been implemented in various countries to increase employment among the poor. An example of a public works program is India’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) which was launched in 2006.17 The scheme provides not less than 100 days of guaranteed minimum wage employment in every financial year to every adult rural household member, who volunteers to do unskilled manual work. It provides an average employment of around 50 million households every year; this is almost one fourth of the total rural 15

With incorporation of inputs from Ms. Fareeha Ibrahim, AusAID, Australia The note prepared by Morrison (2014) is based on a study of Betcherman, Olivas, and Dar (2004). 17 The scheme is based on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005. 16

7

households in India (Ministry of Rural Development, 2014). Although this is a significant number of coverage, there are still negative views on public works programs in general. Brown & Köttl (2012) notes that public works programs are more of a safety net. The programs are not feasible escape routes from permanent unemployment (Dar & Tzannatos, 1999). They do not provide better labor market prospects to the participants (Morrison, 2006). Dar and Tzannatos (1999) further state that the participants are less likely to get employed in an unsubsidized job and would earn less than counterfactuals. There are also labor market programs which provide trainings to jobseekers. Based on evidence, there is a mix of results for labor market training programs as seen in Betcherman, Olivas, and Dar (2004). They mentioned that retraining programs for workers in mass layoffs are mixed. They found very positive impacts in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina which had integrated employment and training services, and strong sponsorship and commitments by employers; however, the post-conflict context of the country needs to be taken into consideration.18 Betcherman, Olivas, and Dar (2004) also note that on-the-job trainings, and employer involvement and sponsorship are found to be associated with more positive outcomes than classroom trainings and programs not connected to the private sector. With regard to training programs for the youth, different results were found in industrialized and developing countries. Among the youth training programs in the industrialized countries covered by the 2004 study, only the U.S. Job Corps Program showed positive results. The U.S. Job Corps Program includes other services such as those related to residency. Meanwhile, for those in the developing countries, most had positive results especially for the Jovenes Programs in Latin American countries, which are targeted at the disadvantaged youth, combining training and work experience with a range of additional services such as psychological development, vocational assessment, etc.19 The common thing among the U.S. and Latin American programs is that the training is included in a comprehensive package which offers other services (Betcherman, Olivas, and Dar, 2004).

C. SLP Results Chain The rationale for the SLP is taken from both the graduation model and labor market programs with social safety net. This can be presented in a results chain showing the inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes of the program and how these components are linked together. The results chain as provided in DSWD FOM was revised to reflect more accurately the relationship of inputs, activities and outcomes based on program concept and field observation on program implementation. Both the DSWD and revised versions are presented in Figures 2a and 2b. The major inputs of the program are the funds and staff (manpower) (Figures 2a and 2b). Funds are utilized for training and other employment support to the target participants. The personnel, meanwhile, are major players in guiding the projects towards the achievement of targeted outcomes. Figure 2b particularly indicates that among the main activities are developing protocols for partnerships, project review, and project approval. Additionally, the activities to be conducted include developing targeting and partnership mechanisms. The outputs produced by these activities include the protocols, and the offer of partnerships and services. When clients and stakeholders respond to offers, the immediate outcomes would then include (1) partnerships formed with the

18 19

Betcherman, Olivas and Dar mention that the sample used for workers in mass layoffs is small. The Jovenes Programs are being implemented in Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, and Uruguay.

8

other stakeholders coming from both the public and the private sector; (2) submitted, reviewed, and approved projects primarily for the MD track; (3) accessing of assets by the SLP participants; and (4) utilization of services by the participants. The immediate outcomes would lead to the intermediate outcome of SLP participants engaging in livelihood and/or jobs in the short-run. Ideally in the long run, the participants would already be engaging in sustainable livelihood and/or gainful jobs which would contribute to an improvement in the economic sufficiency of poor families.

9

Figure 2a. Results Chain of the Sustainable Livelihood Program Source: Sustainable Livelihood Program – National Program Management Office, DSWD

Figure 2b. Results Chain of the Sustainable Livelihood Program Note: revised version of the research team

IV. Implementation Description and Assessment This section provides findings on how the SLP and its EF Track are being implemented in the field vis-à-vis the program design. Table 2 shows the timeline of the main activities in the SLP as seen in the FOM. Given a single project cycle, the targets are that: (1) area, participant, and project identification stages would be conducted during the second semester of the prior year; (2) project implementation would happen during the first semester of the current year; and (3) monitoring activities, as well as implementation of supplementary interventions, would start during the second semester of the current year and would be implemented from then on (DSWD, 2015). A review on the conduct of these activities is needed to determine whether the program is providing the service to the intended beneficiaries and whether the appropriate interventions are given to those selected.

Table 2. SLP Timeline YEAR 0

Year 0 Operations

Year 1 Operations

Year 2 Operations

YEAR 1

SEMESTER 1

SEMESTER 2

SEMESTER 1

Project Implementati on for year 0 participants

Monitoring and additional projects for year 0 participants

Monitoring and additional projects for year 0 participants

Area, Participant, and Project Identification for year 1 participants

Project Implementation for year 1 participants

SEMESTER 2

YEAR 2 SEMESTER 1

SEMESTER 2

Monitoring and additional projects for year 0 participants

Monitoring and additional projects for year 0 participants

Monitoring and additional projects for year 0 participants

Monitoring and additional projects for year 1 participants

Monitoring and additional projects for year 1 participants

Monitoring and additional projects for year 1 participants

Area, Participant, and Project Identification for year 2 participants

Project Implementation for year 2 participants

Monitoring and additional projects for year 2 participants

Source: SLP-FOM, Department of Social Welfare and Development (2015)

A. Selection of SLP Participants from the Population of 4Ps Beneficiaries All 4Ps families in all regions and provinces are eligible to participate in SLP.20 There is an annual target set each year based on SLP budget at DSWD Central Office. The physical targets are allocated for each region based on the distribution of 4Ps families. Different dynamics come into play in the selection process in the barangay level as shown in the intervention identification decision tree in the Field Operations Manual (FOM) (see Figure 3a), as well as in the decision tree that was based on the interviews conducted for this particular study (see Figure 3b).21 The two identification decision trees are compared to determine whether there are deviations from the design of the process. Figure 3b shows that the City or Municipal Action Team (C/MAT), which is composed of the SLP PDOs, the City/Municipal Link, and area/community facilitators, is in charge of targeting barangays and identifying them as SLP project areas. Section 1 of Table 3 shows the criteria for targeting based on the FOM and the fieldwork.22 The FOM indicates that the ranking of barangays for the selection would be based on the total number of 4Ps family members who fit the profiles of the target participants of all priority opportunities in the area (see Annex 2 for sample matrix).23 This guideline, however, could contradict with another FOM statement basing the targeting on the Social Welfare and Development Indicators (SWDI) which is an indicator system used to determine the level of well-being of a family at the time of assessment.24 The FOM statement provides that more “priority families” (SWDI Level 2 or 3) are preferred given that the total number of SWDI Level 2 or 3 families in the barangay is not always proportional to the corresponding total number of 4Ps family members. SWDI Level 1 families, in some cases, may actually be the largest group among the two others as seen in the sample matrix provided in the FOM (see Annex 2). In any case, the mentioned FOM guidelines were not observed in the fieldwork. The conducted interviews, instead, revealed other variations in the selection such as those based on the number of 4Ps beneficiaries (e.g. Cebu

20

The SLP Field Operations Manual (March 18, 2015) provides that non-4Ps families, which are identified as poor based on the Listahanan (formerly the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction), may still be covered in the program. Non-4Ps families, which are not included in the Listahanan database of poor families, may still be covered if a certificate of indigence is issued by the City/Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office, or if they are identified as part of a vulnerable group (e.g. PWDs, elderly, etc.). **The Listahanan is an information management system that identifies the poor families in the Philippines. 21 Figure 4b touches upon the Microenterprise Development Track but no longer elaborates it as the focus of the study is on the Employment Facilitation Track. 22 An asterisk is placed if the criterion is considered, but is not a major determinant in the targeting. 23 City/Municipal Links, which are part of the organizational structure of the 4Ps, keep a record of the 4Ps family members’ skills profiles. Kept information include age, highest educational attainment, and skills and work experience. The information will serve as basis in targeting the SLP participants (see Annex 3). ***Also, possible projects may already be conceptualized at this stage. 24 The SWDI has two major components: (1) economic sufficiency (employment, employable skills, income, social security and access to financial institutions) and (2) social adequacy (health, education, housing, role performance of family and family awareness). Weights are based on the importance and are greatest for Income, Health and Education (1/4 each) with the remaining ¼ distributed equally to other components. Consequently, the weights for Economic Sufficiency and Social Adequacy are 1/3 and 2/3, respectively (SWDI, n.d.) The following are the measured welfare levels: SWDI Level 1 = survival, SWDI Level 2 = subsistence, SWDI Level 3 = self-sufficiency. ***It is noted in the FOM that SWDI Level 1 (survival) families are not excluded.

12

and Pangasinan), and on the number of 4Ps families under the survival category (SWDI Level 1) (e.g. Marikina). Table 3. Criteria for Area and Participant Identification Criteria

Field Operations Manual Based on Field Work

I. Area Identification Barangays with more 4Ps families under the categories of subsistence (SWDI Level 2) or selfsufficiency (SWDI Level 3) are preferred



Barangays with more 4Ps families under the survival category (SWDI Level 1) are preferred Total number of 4Ps family members who fit the profiles of the target participants of all priority opportunities



 

Total number of 4Ps beneficiaries Capacities or resources of possible participants in the area



*



*

Age requirement (18 years old and above under the EF Track, and 16 years old and above under the MD Track)





Capacities or resources of possible participants in the area



*

Location or proximity of the participants to the existing opportunities



*

Existing opportunities

II. Participant Identification

PDOs' assessment of household functionality: utilization of internal and external resources (e.g. *  performance in CCT; participation/ support to SLP activities) Sources: SLP Field Operations Manual; interviews conducted by the research team Note. An asterisk is placed if the criterion is considered but is not a major determinant in the targeting.

The City/Municipal Link’s record of the profiles of 4Ps beneficiaries helps in identifying the potential beneficiaries for the SLP (see Section II of Table 3). The SLP requires EF Track participants to be 18 years old and above, and the MD Track participants to be 16 years old and above (DSWD, 2015; research team’s fieldwork). In general, age requirement is the major criteria that the interviewed PDOs look at in coming up with the list of potential participants. Once this initial list is completed, PDOs, CL/ML, and Parent Leaders validate the information on the ground.

13

Figure 3b. Intervention Identification Decision Tree Note. Based on the fieldwork conducted by the research team

Figure 3a. Intervention Identification Decision Tree Source: SLP Field Operations Manual (2015), DSWD

B. Sorting of SLP Participants into the MD and EF Tracks SLP orientations are provided by field PDOs to the targeted participants of the program. Aside from the purpose of providing information, they serve as a venue for the participants to assess their skills and select which SLP track best fits them. In other words, they make up the initial step in involving the potential participants of the program. Orientations, therefore, are critical to the program process. In the sites visited, however, they are only conducted by the SLP PDOs during Family Development Sessions (FDS) on employment.25 They, themselves, do not set the dates of the orientations and would have to wait for the City/Municipal Link-scheduled FDS on employment. Overall, the SLP PDOs are at a disadvantage as not having control on the schedule of orientations would cause delays in the service delivery of the program..The perceived delays in service delivery, meanwhile, could tempt the PDOs to encourage the selection of the MD Track over the EF Track. Initially conceptualized projects of the PDOs could be further improved with the conduct of orientations. During orientations, some PDOs check the feasibility of their conceptualized projects and look at the actual demands of the SLP participants. For instance, SLP PDOs of DSWD Field Office VII conduct training need analysis during orientations in Cebu, Bohol, Siquijor, and Negros Oriental.26 In this group activity, the PDOs ask the participants about their training needs for their prospective businesses and employment.27 DSWD Field Office VII PDOs would then check for institutions that could provide such trainings. After checking, the SLP PDOs would conduct another orientation in the identified areas in order to present the list of available trainings and confirm participation of the participants. The orientations, in this case, become informative to both the PDOs and the participants. There are variations in the kind of assistance provided per family. Family members could choose the MD Track and work towards having either an individual or a group enterprise.28 Family members could also choose the EF Track instead, where his readiness to get employed would be assessed. And although not in indicated in Figure 3a, members could also refuse to undergo any intervention (see Figure 3b). Lack of readiness and constraints to participate in trainings are the often cited reasons for refusal. These refusals are not monitored by the DSWD since the familes can still be targeted in the future. Per family, more than one member is allowed to participate in the program (e.g. mother is in the MD Track, while son is in the EF Track). More than one family member could also choose to undergo the interventions under the EF Track. Under the MD Track, however, the SEA-K scheme could only be availed once by a family. At the end of the day, the kind of assistance provided to the families depends on the decisions made by their respective members

25

Family Development Sessions, which are held once a month, are intended for 4Ps beneficiaries and are venues for discussion of various development topics. *** There are only a few instances wherein the SLP PDOs were able to conduct special orientations. 26 Negros Oriental is now a part of the Negros Island Region under Executive Order No. 183 which was signed by President Benigno Aquino III on May 29, 2015. To be consistent with the data provided by the SLP-NPMO, provinces in the Negros Island Region will still be included in the regions where they were previously classified: Negros Occidental in Region VI and Negros Oriental in Region VII. 27 Based on fieldwork and the SLP Field Operations Manual 2013 28 Families could only be assisted through the SEA-K once.

15

Similarities have been observed in the participants comprising the MD and EF Tracks. The SLP PDOs of the visited sites have relayed that MD track participants of their areas are usually composed of mothers who cannot leave their families at home, people who have lost eagerness to look for work, and parents who would no longer be able to find work because their ages are beyond the range accepted by employers. On the other hand, EF Track participants of the visited areas are mostly children of 4Ps beneficiaries and fathers who can still do hard labor. Within the EF track, participants are also defined by the type of work available. For instance, participants who sign up for public works jobs are retirees or older beneficiaries, who have been out of the labor market for several years. On the other hand, those into househkeeping, bartending are the younger generation. Most of the interviewed participants chose the EF Track in order to have additional and higher income to support their families. Other participants chose this track to gain skills and get employed. Overall, looking at all these similarities would make one think that the selection of tracks depends on the participants’ own assessment of their capacities and desires. In all of the sites visited, the choice of SLP track has indeed depended on the participants. Nevertheless, there are external factors which have had bearings on the decisions of some of them. For instance, young SLP participants are not usually the ones who have attended the FDS but their parents. This would not have negative consequences if the participants themselves had been willing to enroll in the program, enter employment, and like the job offered to them. However, there are cases wherein participants back out because they have merely been signed up in the program track by their parents. This could actually displaced other individuals who have the potential to become SLP beneficiaries. Such cases may be prevented by encouraging all 4Ps family members to attend the SLP orientation, which is the current practice in Pangasinan.

Meanwhile, PDOs also influence the selection of the participants between the MD and the EF Track. PDOs may no longer introduced EF track based on their assessment of company requirements and qualifications of SLP beneficiaries. Overall, although selection of the track is technically in the hands of the participants, the way the orientation is conducted could definitely affect their decision. C. Employment Faciliation Interventions The decision of SLP participants to take the EF Track would provide them access to some of the following interventions: (1) pre-employment counseling, (2) skills training, (3) referral, (4) PreEmployment Assistance Fund (PEAF), (5) and Cash for Building Livelihood Assets (CBLA).29 All participants are supposedly provided with pre-employment counseling. Based on the interviews, the PDOs teach them on work ethics, proper presentation of themselves during job interviews, etc. Those who are not yet ready for employment would be lined up for skills training so that they could 29

The DSWD uses the term “modalities” to refer to the methods used in the provision of interventions. The agency considers skills training, PEAF, and CBLA as belonging to the group of modalities. The research team of this study simply uses the term “interventions” to encompass these things in addition to the other services extended to the EF Track participants. ***Another reference used for the discussion on the interventions is: Gonzales, E. (2014). Consultancy for the Short-Term Employment Guarantee Scheme of the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP). Final Report (DFAT).

16

acquire skills that would improve their employability. Having acquired the skills, participants could already be extended with the same interventions provided to those ready for employment at the outset. All participants who are ready for employment would already be assisted through referrals and/or enrollment to the CBLA. Additionally, given certain conditions, the participants could get financial grants through the PEAF for the preparation of employment documents. Skills Training is a capacity building activity implemented with partners to increase the knowledge and develop the existing skills of the participants. To formalize the partnership, the DSWD and partner technical-vocational (tech-voc) institutions of the visited sites have signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The partner tech-voc institutions offer various courses to the SLP participants. Table 4 provides a sample matrix of courses offered by one of the interviewed techvoc institutions (i.e., School of Knowledge for Industrial Labor Leadership and Service) to the SLP participants, along with the regular cost of training, and the duration.30 The training fees of the partner tech-voc institutions shall be taken from the Skills Training Fund. The Skills Training Fund covers fees directly attributable (or leading) to the acquisition and/or enhancement of the knowledge and skills of the participants (e.g. tuition fee/professional fees, materials, supplies, starter kits, transportation allowance, assessment fee, food, and accommodations) (DSWD, 2015). From the fund, each participant may avail a maximum of Php 20,000.00 as seen in the FOM. The maximum amount, however, is lower than the regular training cost in some technical-vocational (tech-voc) institutions as seen in Table 4. Furthermore, the budget parameter in 2014 and 2015 was pegged at Php 8,500. In other words, the fund per participant was pegged at a much lower amount than the actual cost parameter.31 At the end of the day, the low budget for the Skills Training Fund to be allocated per participant could actually reduce access to good training and to the other needs of the participants. Table 4. Training Costs: School of Knowledge for Industrial Labor Leadership and Service (SKILLS) Cebu Courses Offered to SLP Participants Masonry Housekeeping Carpentry Tile Setting Welding

SLP Package*

20,000.00

Regular Cost** 28,333.3 24,946.7 25,786.7 19,920.0 42,333.3

Duration 33 days 54 days 21 days 11 days 34 days

Source: Ms. Rhea Cedeño- SLP In-Charge: School of Knowledge for Industrial Labor Leadership and Service (SKILLS) – Cebu Note. * Package includes Tuition Fee, Accommodation, Meals, and Personal Protective Equipment **Package includes Tuition Fee, Accoommodation, Meals, and Personal Protective Equipment; Estimated Cost on Accommodation, Meals, and Personal Protective Equipment

Referrals are done by the DSWD in order to link the EF Track participants to potential employers. Participants who undergo skills training would get referred to employers and/or 30

Regular Cost: package includes tuition fee, accommodation, meals and personal protective equipment *estimated cost on accommodation, meals, and personal protective equipment 31

A request has already been made in 2016 to increase the budget based on the cost parameter. 17

manpower service providers upon completion of their training. On the other hand, those who have been ready for employment at the outset would immediately be referred to employers and/or manpower service providers. Overall, this intervention is very critical as PDO outputs are actually being measured in terms of the number of EF Track participants who were able to get employed. Cash for Building Livelihood Assets (CBLA) is an intervention involving short-term employment that not only provides immediate cash assistance in the short run, but is also aimed at developing and protecting natural assets for the establishment of profitable and sustainable microenterprises in the long run. CBLA projects are best implemented in areas where: (1) natural resources are abundant, (2) there is a strong LGU support, and (3) participants are willing to sustain the project (DSWD, 2015). Families must take note that only one employable family member, who is qualified for the SLP, may participate in the CBLA projects. The employment of those who would participate would not exceed 11 days.32 Each participant’s maximum allowance is 75% of the prevailing regional minimum wage. Other good points about the program had been stated by Gonzales in his 2014 study: “It cost the DSWD less than Php 2,200.00 per beneficiary to provide short-term employment AND an increase or improvement in livelihood assets (rubber trees, bamboo, mangroves, protected slopes, pineapple crowns, roads, etc.) to more than 3,000 beneficiaries within a span of two to three months (from project design to completion).” CBLA outputs, however, are not considered under the EF track but MD track since these projects are undertaken to develop or improve enterprise projects of communities. The employment generated is considered an intermediate output for MD. The Pre-Employment Assistance Fund (PEAF) is allotted to SLP participants who need financial assistance in acquiring pre-employment requirements. The fund covers pre-employment expenses in getting a birth certificate, passport, school diploma, medical or physical examination, barangay and NBI clearances, and TIN (see Annex 4). Furthermore, the grant may be used not only to cover travel expenses (fare and food) in securing the requirements mentioned, but also transportation expenses of going to and from the workplace. Coverage of the transportation expenses of the employed could last for a maximum period of fifteen (15) days with the expectation that the first half-month salary would be received after such time or a maximum of 30 days given a monthly payment of salary. Upon completion of all documentary requirements, secondary purposes (e.g. uniform payment) may be taken from the remaining balance of the amount. All in all, the maximum amount that may be availed by each participant through the PEAF is Php 5,000.00; however, tapping this fund comes with conditions. DSWD Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 10 (Series of 2015), which amended MC No. 22 (Series of 2014), requires that a participant has to have a guaranteed employer who offers at least three months of employment.33 Previously, participants with “potential employers” could already gain access to the PEAF, but MC No. 10 removed their eligibility to “ensure that the assistance will transform clearly into employment generation.” The removal certainly embodies the objective of generating employment for the EF Track participants. Its removal, however, could only work well if the financial assistance through PEAF is immediately provided to the participants; this is apparently

32

This is inclusive of a half-day pre-CBLA orientation and half-day post CBLA wrap-up meeting. ***Employment could be extended for not more than three months, provided that the Regional Director approves and that the SLP fund is available. 33 This guideline is not (yet) strictly implemented based on the site visits.

18

not the case in some areas.34 There are some cases in the visited sites wherein the financial assistance works on a reimbursement scheme; this actually defeats the purpose of the PEAF. Although the objectives of the PEAF are very ideal, the delays in the PEAF release could result in loss of employment opportunities to the EF Track participants and/or postponement of the employment.

D. Employment Facilitation Track Partnerships Building employment partnerships are designed to link participants to employment through arrangements directly with employers or indirectly through manpower services and training institutions. There are different ways in which EF Track partnerships have been developed. Some were initiated by the SLP-NPMO, some by the SLP field staffers, and some by the private sector. The manner in which the partnerships are initiated and the rationale behind their creation, would provide insights on how the projects would go about in the future. The SLP-NPMO has initiated some of the current partnerships created under the EF Track. These are partnerships with other national government agencies such as the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), and the Department of Tourism (DOT). The nationwide coverage of these partnerships provides an opportunity to serve a lot of EF Track participants. Based on the interviews conducted, the SLP field staff (SLP PDOs and External Relations Officers), truly make an effort to look for partnerships that would be effective in increasing employment among the participants. Their current practice is to match the profiles of the participants with the available employment in their respective localities, and they also offer trainings for in demand skills that participants’ lack. For instance, in Pangasinan, the SLP office and MAT inform their partners on the profiles and number of participants to be served. In this consultation meeting, they conduct a matching of plans and targets with the partners. They are then able to determine the appropriate trainings and jobs to be offered to the participants. More efforts need to be exhausted by the SLP staff when they are assigned to areas with only a few job opportunities or with job mismatch. The lack of job opportunities and job mismatch could place difficulty in establishing partnerships and increase preference to encourage the takeup of the MD Track. To address this constraint, the staff of the SLP field offices coordinates to open up more opportunities for the participants. As a model, provinces like Bohol, Siquijor, and Negros Oriental provide their SLP participants the option to go to Cebu where partner training schools and employment opportunities are located. The PDOs of Cebu, meanwhile, adopt the participants from the two other provinces and assist them in their employment-related concerns. It must be noted, however, that relocation of the participants could have an adverse social impact and that not all are willing to relocate for employment. In Masbate, where there are only a few good employment opportunities, PDOs also look for potential employers and tech-voc institutions outside of their province. Another interesting thing that came out during the interviews in Masbate is that even with the labor market situation, the PDOs still do not encourage domestic help employment which is 34

The SLP PDOs require the submission of receipts and the employment certificate in the reimbursement of expenses.

19

acceptable to PDOs in Marikina, Davao City, and Pangasinan. The Masbate PDOs explained that the cold treatment is due to their desire to prevent illegal recruitment. Aside from the partnerships initiated by the SLP-NPMO and the field officers, some companies from the private sector also approach SLP staff to be partners in the EF Track interventions. Their decision to get involved in the SLP-EF program is grounded on a perception of what they will get from participating and how that will be of use in their business. Overall, the partnerships created from the initiation of the three groups may be categorized into the following: (1) partnership for the direct employment of participants; (2) partnership for the facilitation of job search; (3) partnership for training; (4) partnership for employment-directed training; and (5) informal partnership. D.1. Direct Employment of Participants The DSWD requests for collaboration with other national government agencies (NGAs) for direct employment of EF Track participants. Partners from the public sector are expected to agree to coordinate with the DSWD especially if their mandate is in line with the interventions being provided by the lead agency. The partnerships that they make with the DSWD are formalized at their central office and implemented through their field agencies. Some of the major NGAs that have become a partner in this category are the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), and the Department of Tourism (DOT).35 The DSWD has a very strong partnership with the DPWH through the Trabahong Lansangan Program of the DPWH. The DPWH allots 40% of its required number of workers in public works/ infrastructure projects to the EF Track participants.36 The DSWD would endorse selected beneficiaries to the DPWH; the latter would no longer conduct further screening since the jobs provided do not require specific skills. The endorsed EF Track participants would be assigned to sweep streets, declog drainage, paint along roads, place asphalt pavement, repair manhole covers, etc. depending on their abilities and experiences. They are hired for six months under job order and would receive above-minimum wage salaries funded by the DSWD through automated teller machines (ATMs).37 Some of them get absorbed by the DPWH; those who do not get absorbed must wait for another six months if they would want to apply again in the program. The DPWH officials who have been interviewed have different experiences with the hired SLP beneficiaries from the pool of EF Track participants. There are beneficiaries who have been reported to back out from their work - some of them suddenly not showing up at their designated areas because they find the environment difficult or are embarrassed doing menial jobs. On the other hand, there are beneficiaries who work well and are even more hardworking than non-

35

Among these agencies, only the DPWH was interviewed by the research team. In the Trabahong Lansangan Program, the allocation of workers per municipality is based on road length. According to the interviewed staff from DPWH, the ratio is one worker for approximately 3.5 kilometers of road. 37 Generally, in the interviews conducted, SLP beneficiaries hired through the Trabahong Lansangan Program have a daily wage of ₱409.09. 36

20

Patawid beneficiaries as relayed by DPWH officials of Cebu City and Davao City.38 Additionally, there are some beneficiaries who request for extensions of their jobs as in Pangasinan. All the DPWH officials who were interviewed hope that the partnership with DSWD would continue. They explain that the partnership is able to help the beneficiaries. Nevertheless, some of them attest that it would be better if the DSWD conducts a better screening of their EF Track participants, i.e., the participants could go through interviews, additional medical exams, etc. before they get endorsed by the DSWD. Additionally, some of the DPWH officials urge that aside from their agency, other NGAs should also assist the EF Track participants. Aside from the DPWH, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has also partnered with the DSWD for the employment of the EF Track participants. The involvement is in the National Greening Program (NGP) of the DENR. It focuses on job-generating livelihood project models through community agro-forestry projects and other similar income-generating activities covered by the NGP. The DSWD is also involved with the DENR in the Grow a Million Trees Project where people’s organizations are tapped for the plantation and conservation of chosen sites (DSWD, 2015). The Department of Agriculture (DA) is also a partner of the DSWD in the employment of the EF Track participants. Their involvement is mainly in the Cash for Building Livelihood Assets (CBLA), which as mentioned earlier, provides short-term employment through labor-intensive projects for the development of physical and natural assets. Other partners of the DSWD are the Department of Tourism (DOT) and the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA). The DOT and the DSWD are coordinating with one another in the One-Step Project which involves the underprivileged in tourism-related development and operations. Meanwhile, the TIEZA and the DSWD have worked on the RoadEnhancing Softscapes for Tourism Project which taps the EF Track participants for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Visitor Information Centers (VICs) and Green Restrooms (GROOMs) (DSWD, 2015). In summary, there are a number of NGAs which have participated in the EF Track (see Box 2). These NGAs have projects which are being implemented nationwide and have already employed the EF Track participants.

38

DPWH allocates 60% of job requirement to non-Pantawid beneficiaries based on recommendations of local government officials and congressional representatives.

21

Box 2. Labor Programs of Partner NGAs A.

Trabahong Lansangan Program

The Trabahong Lansangan Program of the DPWH is a public works program. Hired workers are assigned to sweep streets, declog drainage, paint along roads, place asphalt pavement, repair manhole covers, etc. depending on the workers’ abilities and experiences. Under the Trabahong Lansangan Program, the allocation of workers per municipality is based on road length. According to the interviewed staff from DPWH, the ratio is one worker for approximately 3.5 kilometers of road. The DPWH allots 40% of its required number of workers in public works/ infrastructure projects to the EF Track participants. The EF Track participants are hired for six months under job order and would receive above-minimum wage salaries funded by the DSWD through automated teller machines (ATMs).

B.

National Greening Program

The National Greening Program (NGP) of the DENR, which was establied by virtue of Executive Order No. 26, is a forest rehabilitation program whose objective is to grow 1.5 billion trees in 1.5 million hectares nationwide within a period of six years starting from 2011 up to 2016. It is also a climate change mitigation strategy. Additionally, it is designed to reduce poverty by providing alternative livelihood activities to marginalized upland and lowland households relating to seedling production and care and maintenace of newly-planted trees (DENR, n.d.). C.

Grow a Million Trees Project

The “Grow A Million Trees” project is a product of the collaboration of the DENR and the SM Foundation (SMFI), together with the DSWD. The project is aimed at reforesting at least four provinces and two cities (Pampanga, Batangas, Laguna, Camarines Sur, Bacolod City, and General Santos City). The DENR would provide technical assistance in nursery operation, and plantation establishment, maintenance and protection. Closely coordinating with the DENR, the SMFI would conduct the actual seedling production and tree planting. Disadvantaged residents in the selected areas, including 4Ps beneficiaries, would be employed in the project (Villanueva, 2014).

D.

Cash for Building Livelihood Assets

The Cash for Building Livelihood Assets (CBLA) is being implemented by the DSWD and the DA. It is an intervention involving short-term employment that not only provides immediate cash assistance in the short run, but is also aimed at developing and protecting natural assets for the establishment of profitable and sustainable microenterprises in the long run. Families must take note that only one employable family member, who is qualified for the SLP, may participate in the CBLA projects. The employment of those who would participate would not exceed 11 days. Each participant’s maximum allowance is 75% of the prevailing regional minimum wage.

E.

One-Step Project

The One-Step Project is a partnership project among the DOT, the DSWD, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The program aims to improve the lives of the poor (including but not limited to 4Ps beneficiaries) through more direct tourism-related interventions. Under the partnership, the DSWD would help the DOT make the National Tourism Development Plan into a community-driven eco-tourism development plan to ensure inclusive economic growth. Underprivileged participants of the DSWD SLP are given the chance to be selfreliant through their engagement in income-generating activities (DOT, 2013).

F.

Road-Enhancing Softscapes for Tourism Project

The Road-Enhancing Softscapes for Tourism Project is a product of a partnership between the TIEZA and the DSWD. The project provides employment in the construction, operation, and maintenance of Visitor Information Centters (VICs) and Green Restrooms (GROOMs).

22

D.2.

Partnership for the Facilitation of Job Matching

The DSWD has partnered with both the public and the private sectors for the facilitation of job matching. In the public sector, Public Employment Service Offices (PESOs), which are knowledgeable on the available job opportunities in the localities, have been tapped. In the private sector, manpower service providers, which also have a broad knowledge on the local job market, have been linking the participants to their client-employers. D.2.1. Public Employment Service Office (PESO) The PESO is a local-based institution, which DSWD has considered as a major partner for employment facilitation. PESOs are employment service facilities under the office of the governor, city, or municipal mayor. They are also under the technical supervision of the DOLE. Republic Act No. 8759, also known as the “Public Employment Service Office Act of 1999,” provides that PESOs shall ensure the prompt, timely and efficient delivery of employment service and provision of information on the other DOLE programs.39 PESOs have the following functions: “(a) encourage employers to submit to the PESO on a regular basis a list of job vacancies…; (b) develop and administer testing and evaluation instruments for effective job selection, training and counselling; (c) provide persons with entrepreneurship qualities, access to the various livelihood and self-employment programs…; (d) undertake employability enhancement trainings or seminars…; (e) provide employment or occupational counselling, career guidance, mass motivation and values development activities; (f) conduct pre-employment counselling and orientation to prospective local and, most especially, overseas workers; (g) provide reintegration assistance services to returning Filipino migrant workers; (h) prepare and submit to the local sanggunian an annual employment plan and budget including other regular funding sources and budgetary support of the PESO; and (i) perform such functions as to fully carry out the objectives of [the] Act.” (RA No. 10691). PESOs have been providing services in line with their mandate. For instance, they have been helping the DOLE in the implementation of the National Skills Registry System (NSRS), a nationwide registry of jobseekers intended to facilitate referral to employers. The NSRS form provides the jobseekers’ basic information, preference in terms of occupation and work location, educational background, vocational/ technical training and relevant experience, and work experience. Jobseekers can register through the Phil-Jobnet, an online job matching system of the DOLE with the centralized database being maintained by the Bureau of Local Employment (BLE). Other than the PESOs’ assistance in the implementation of the NSRS, they also conduct job fairs that are open to both 4Ps and non-4Ps beneficiaries. Some PESOs were also found to conduct career coaching and values formation sessions with the 4Ps beneficiaries. Overall, the PESOs’ mandate and services make their involvement to the program rational. In the visited provinces, the cooperation between the SLP offices and PESOs had generally started when SLP field offices introduced the program to the City/ Municipal Action Team (C/MAT).

39

On October 26, 2015, President Benigno Aquino III signed Republic Act No. 10691 which amends the PESO Act of 1999. The amendments provide that the responsibility of operating and maintaining the PESOs shall be given to the LGUs, the funds for which shall be sourced from the LGUs’ internal revenue allotment (IRA) and their additional internally generated income. Meanwhile, DOLE shall allot a budget in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for the provision of technical assistance, training, and supervision of PESO.

23

Interviewed PESO managers welcome coordination with the DSWD to provide assistance to SLP participants, and the DSWD has taken advantage of this. In fact, some SLP field offices which were visited have sealed the collaboration with PESOs through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the local government units (LGUs) to which they are connected, and some through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the PESO field offices.40 Those with MOAs/ MOUs are in constant communication with the respective PESOs they partnered with. Generally, however, EF Track participants are not given priority over non-EF Track participants, which means that the EF Track participants would be competing with those not in the program; this could actually result in their displacement. Additionally, there are still cases where there is no MOA. For some, this has become a hindrance to assisting the participants through the PESO. For instance, in Marikina, the development of a partnership between the SLP Field Office and the PESO had been getting delayed because they could not agree on whether there should be a MOA between them. The DSWD prefers that a memorandum should be made for them to move forward. On the other hand, the PESO does not think that a MOA is necessary for them to provide assistance to the EF Track participants. The PESO simply requires the DSWD field office to provide the list and corresponding skills of the participants. The holdups in the development of the partnership are unfortunate as the EF Track participants could have been assisted by the PESO already (e.g. the PESO could link them to the Guild of Marikina Workers which is composed of individuals with the following skills: carpentry, masonry, welding, plumbing, electrical installation, and housekeeping). Further to the issues in the partnerships, there are cases wherein there is a weak collaboration between the PESO and the DSWD due to the lack of suitable jobs in the locality. There are some PESOs which are not active and are confined in looking for jobs just within their area. When faced with the lack-of-job situation, PESO could not link SLP participants to employment. In such cases, some of the SLP staff would have to look for jobs outside the locality without the help of the PESOs or build and strengthen partnerships directly with private sector manpower services or training institute. In areas where the partnerships between the DSWD and the PESOs have worked, the jobs support to SLP beneficifiaries have been good. According to the PESO manager of New Bataan, Compostela Valley, the partnership has very much helped his office in its service delivery. Meanwhile, it has also become a good support to the SLP offices as seen in Lingayen, Pangasinan. PESO-Lingayen links the EF Track participants to big employers such as the shipbuilder Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Philippines, Inc. which provides two weeks of flux cored arc welding (FCAW) training and hires 1,500 to 2,000 people each month.41 Additionally, the EF Track participants are being linked to jobs in housekeeping, electrical, and construction industry. Despite some positive results of the partnership between the DSWD and PESO, some concerns have been raised by PESO managers. Some PESO managers point out that 4Ps beneficiaries have difficulty in looking for work since they are usually short in educational attainment. Companies normally require their employees to be high school graduates at the minimum and set age

40

According to RA No. 8759, PESOs shall be maintained largely by local government units (LGUs) and a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or community-based organizations (CBOs) and state universities and colleges (SUCs). 41 All the 1,500 to 2,000 people, who get hired, are not necessarily EF Track participants.

24

requirements.42 Additionally, the managers relay that some of those who get jobs back out. The PESO manager of Pangasinan mentioned that around 55 beneficiaries have given up on the jobs that they had been linked to. The reasons include personality issues, no confidence, no interest in work, and/or complain about their hardships and the distance of the workplace to their home.

D.2.2

Private Manpower Service Providers

Aside from the PESOs, DSWD field offices have also sealed partnerships with private manpower service providers for job matching facilitation. Representatives of the following partner manpower service providers had been interviewed: Quest Career Human Resources Mancom, Inc. (QCHRMI), KFL Manpower Agency, and EJB Jobcare Manpower Services. Their partnership with the DSWD had started through the initiative of the SLP field offices in the conduct of seminars on the program and/or through individual efforts of project development officers (PDOs). There are various employments to which they link the EF Track participants. For instance, the QCHRMI links the participants to positions such as gasoline attendant, waiter, factory worker, promodizer, etc. The KFL Manpower Agency of Davao City links them to positions such as production crew, office staff, etc. Meanwhile, the EJP Jobcare Manpower Services of Davao City links the participants to positions such as frontliners, cashiers, etc. Aside from linking jobseekers and employers, some of the manpower service providers also include other services into their assistance to the participants: values formation, career coaching, trainings for the actual jobs being applied to, etc. The fees for the services provided by the three private manpower service providers are charged to their clientemployers and not to the DSWD nor to the EF Track participants. The fees charged to the EF Track participants, if any, are only for miscellaneous expenses. For instance, Marikina and Pasig SLP partner QCHRMI only collects a one-time administration fee from their client-employer (equivalent to 10% of the monthly salary of the employee) and collects fees from the participants only for the issuance of identification cards. In the interviews conducted, the private manpower service providers revealed the incentive that participation to the SLP entails, as well as the issues their companies have encountered. They described the EF Track participants as “less choosy” compared to others, enabling their company to address labor shortages in some jobs that did not appeal to other workers. The willingness of the participants to work under different conditions created a smoother facilitation of employment that the institutions found advantageous. Linking all the EF Track participants is not without issues and problems. Issues on qualifications had been cited as a hindrance to the facilitation. According to the partner mannpower service providers, there are many participants who do not meet the minimum educational attainment and the age limit set by employers. Manpower service provider QCHRMI has solved such issues by informing their client-employers that the individuals they are endorsing are 4Ps beneficiaries. Another problem cited by the partners is that some of the participants lack confidence, while others are too dependent on the government. Meanwhile, some of those who are

42

According to SLP-Cebu and Masbate PDOs, the employable age is generally from 18 to 30 years old. It must be noted, however, that age requirements differ depending on the employer and the occupation. For instance, SLP-Cebu PDOs note that security agencies usually require the applicants to be in the range of 19 to 36 years old. Meanwhile, QCHRMI mentioned that the qualifying age for promodizers are from 18 to 25 years old.

25

offered jobs by the client-employers cannot move forward with the process because they have insufficient funds to complete the requirements.43 Despite the issues and difficulties in facilitating the employment of 4Ps beneficiaries, the private manpower service providers and PESOs, which were interviewed, still think highly of their partnership with the DSWD and the kind of assistance it provides. Furthermore, they have expressed their desire to continue as partners in the SLP.

D.3.

Partnership for Training44

The DSWD has partners in the public and private sectors, which provide training to the EF Track participants, as well as the MD Track participants. Partners in the public sector include the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).45 Meanwhile, partners in the private sector are technical-vocational (tech-voc) institutions. Both the public and private sector partners for training, attempt to equip the SLP participants with the skills that they need, to get employed and/or run a business. Under the public sector category, the TESDA and the DSWD have partnered in the Cash for Training Project (C4TP) which aim to empower the youth with skills training and assistance for gainful (wage) employment and entrepreneurial activities (self-employment) (TESDA, 2015). In the C4TP, the participants would be provided cash assistance in the form of a training voucher, competency assessment fee, and an allowance (maximum is Php 20,000.00) to be given in two tranches (middle and end of training program). Another SLP partner in training the participants is the DA which provides agricultural technical assistance and training programs to the beneficiaries. Meanwhile, in the last two years, the DOST and the DAR have provided technical assistance mainly in values and skills training. Meanwhile, some TESDA-accredited private tech-voc institutions have also partnered with the DSWD in the SLP. One reason why the private tech-voc institutions are interested to partner with the SLP is because of the less risky payment scheme. Tech-voc institutions bear the risk of nonrepayment losses because some students only have the capacity to pay once they receive wages from their employment after training. With their agreement to provide service to SLP participants, they are somehow more assured of payment because the training fees are paid by the DSWD.46

43

QCHRMI enumerated the usual requirements of its client-employers: (1) diploma, (2) Social Security System (SSS) membership, (3) National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance; and (4) birth certificate. 44 The research team was only able to interview technical-vocational training institutions (non-academic based). In some areas, PDOs have partnerships with academic-based training centers (e.g. Visayan Maritime Academy or VMA Global College) 45 The research team was not able to interview these agencies. 46 The funds to pay the services of the tech-voc institutions can be transferred following the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184). This can be done through Competitive Bidding, which refers to a method of procurement that is open to participation by any interested party and consists of the following processes: advertisement, pre-bid conference, eligibility screening of prospective bidders, receipt and opening of bids, evaluation of bids, postqualification, and award of contract. It can also be done through Alternative Methods of Procurement: Limited Bidding/Selective Bidding, Direct Contracting, Repeat Order, Shopping, and Negotiated Procurement.

26

The agreement between the SLP PDOs and the tech-voc institutions is to provide participants with a good training package. The common goal of the interviewed training schools is to provide assistance to those living in poor communities. Their current priority is to provide good trainings to the participants so that they could easily get employed. In Marikina, there are trainings on cookery, baking, food and beverage, housekeeping, and welding. Meanwhile, trainings on welding, electronics, and dressmaking are offered in Pangasinan. In Masbate, most of the participants joined trainings on security services and computer. In Cebu and Negros Oriental, the trainings offered are on housekeeping, cookery, bartending, food and beverage, masonry, carpentry, welding, call center, and security services. Davao City and Compostela Valley participants are attending trainings on welding, automotive, driving, computer hardware services, and cookery. In order for the participants to better appreciate the trainings, there have been adjustments with the schedule and pace of some of these courses. The shortest training (i.e. call center) lasts for two weeks, while training on housekeeping is for 55 days. Aside from a quality training course, personality development, and proper grooming and hygiene are included in the trainings by some tech-voc institutions.47 Some of them also provide accommodation, transportation, meals, and uniform. After the training, the participants will undergo an assessment in order to get a National Certificate (NC I for community-based trainings and NC II for school-based trainings). According to the interviewees, the National Certificate is usually one of the things that employers look for in their applicants. To the employers, the National Certificate will serve as proof of the skills acquired by the participants in the trainings. The interviewed private tech-voc institutions provided their feedback on the SLP participants and their partnership with the DSWD. Regarding the participants, the tech-voc institutions relayed that although there are cases where participants back out in the trainings, the attitude, the behavior and the lives of the participants improved over time. Not only did the SLP participants gain selfconfidence and knowledge, but more importantly, some were already able to get jobs which improved their living conditions. Regarding the SLP partnership, the tech-voc institutions generally have good feedback; however, a number of those interviewed have said that there are delays in the payments for the skills training they provide. The delays in payment could discourage the continuation of partnerships and could have a grave effect on the trainings of the EF Track participants.

D.4.

Partnership for Employment-Directed Training

In some areas like Pangasinan and Cebu, the current practice of the PDOs is to request the partner tech-voc institutions to link participants to gainful employment after graduating from skills training. There is much validity for this request; tech-voc institutions have the potential to directly link their students to employment. Tech-voc institutions, for instance, could tap manpower agencies. The participants could get linked through the network of employers of the manpower agencies or even get employed in the tech-voc institutions which taught them the skills they currently have. Additionally, some institutions have partner companies that can directly hire the graduates. In such cases, the trainings are specifically inclined to the work that participants would have in the partner 47

Some tech-voc institutions said that they saw the need to inject proper grooming and hygiene lessons and/or interventions since some participants do not know how to properly present themselves.

27

companies of the tech-voc institutions. Although there is no assurance that all the graduates will be hired as further screening is still done by the employers, employment-directed trainings increase the probability that the EF Track participants would get employed.

D.5.

Informal Partnership

There are also sectors which have employed the EF Track participants but do not have any formal partnership with the DSWD. These include employers which are linked to the previously mentioned SLP partners, employers which the SLP field offices have come to know to have job vacancies, or employers to which the participants have applied to on their own. Examples of these employers are restaurants, resorts, and private households which hire beneficiaries who underwent training in housekeeping. Most of the interviewed employers who do not have formalized partnerships with the DSWD are not aware that they hired EF Track participants. They were only informed when they were asked to be interviewed for this study. Some LGU Human Resources Departments were also surprised to learn that their LGU has employed EF Track participants already (ex. Lingayen, Pangasinan). Obviously, the interviewed employers have not been prioritizing these participants over the other applicants in selecting the people that they would hire. The hired beneficiaries are mostly contractual, the longest duration of contract being one year. When asked for feedback on work performance, all of the interviewed employers have nothing but praise. In fact, they do not think that there is any difference between EF Track beneficiaries and non-EF Track beneficiaries. Many of them have relayed that the beneficiaries are competent, hardworking and can easily be taught. Some of them have even actually encouraged the well-performing beneficiaries to aspire and apply for higher positions; such is the case with a beneficiary hired by the DSWD VII Field Office in Cebu City. Overall, the employers are supportive of the program and the EF Track participants. The LGU of Marikina, in particular, said that the EF Track is a good scheme in providing assistance to the needy. Some of the other employers, such as the LGU of Pangasinan, have relayed that they want to improve their relationship with the DSWD in order to provide more assistance. Meanwhile, other LGUs have expressed concern on their budget and organizational structure if they were to hire more EF Track participants. Some interviewed LGUs have relayed that most of the available work in their offices are only job orders and do not have plantilla positions. In addition, politics comes into play for some, if not for all of the LGUs when it comes to hiring.

E.

Monitoring process by DSWD and partners

Generally, the interviewed SLP staff count EF Track outputs based on the number of participants with employment for at least three months; but in the early years of the SLP, no formal mechanism in monitoring the status of the EF Track participants’ employment had been put in place. Based on the interviews with the field PDOs, getting updates depends on the communication of the SLP PDOs with the partners and participants. Some partner manpower service providers submit reports to the DSWD on the employment of the participants they are assisting/ have already linked 28

to their client-employers. Such is the case with Davao City’s KFL Manpower Agency which is able to monitor the beneficiaries every month. Furthermore, some partner employers provide updates to the DSWD. The DPWH, for instance, is in constant communication with the SLP field offices. There are also cases wherein the 4Ps beneficiaries themselves update the PDOs through text messages. Meanwhile, some partner tech-voc institutions prepare reports on the performance of EF Track participants on the trainings; however, they no longer monitor the beneficiaries once they graduate. According to the interviewed tech-voc institutions, not all beneficiaries give updates when they get employed. Furthermore, all the good practices mentioned do not apply to all as there had been no formalized mechanism in the early years of the program. It could therefore be the case that the available data on EF Track output is understated. Moreover, there may be other issues not being addressed in terms of the quality of jobs where the participants have been employed, work environment, and wages/salaries. The DSWD has, nevertheless, been trying to improve its monitoring on the SLP participants. In 2015, SWDI baselining was administered. The SWDI level would be monitored annually to reveal movements in the level of well-being of participants.

V. SLP-Emplyment Facilitation Outcomes The succeeding paragraphs discuss the intermediate outcomes resulting from the SLF-EF implementation process.

A. 4Ps Families Served in the Sustainable Livelihood Program As of December 2015, around 22% of the total number of families enrolled in the 4Ps as of August 26, 2015 have been served in the SLP (see Table 5).48 Table 6 shows that the number of 4Ps families served in the SLP already cover 99% of DSWD’s physical target (970,914 families) from CY 2011 to 2015. In a number of regions, more than 100% of the physical target had been covered (Regions I, II, III, V, VI, IX, X, XI, XII, CARAGA, and NCR). On the other hand, less than 50% of the physical target are covered in some regions (Regions IV-A and ARMM).

Table 5. Percentage of 4Ps Families Served Through the SLP as of December 2015 4Ps Families as of August 26, 2015*

Region

NCR

SLP-4Ps Families as of December 2015

% of 4Ps Families Served Through the SLP**

231,479

35,228

15%

CAR

63,123

22,371

35%

I

201,946

41,848

21%

II

101,921

27,389

27%

48

The 4Ps database used is with the heading “Number of Active Pantawid Pamilya Beneficiary Households by Region”

29

III

288,780

44,280

15%

IV-A

317,242

17,547

6%

IV-B

196,203

47,696

24%

V

373,669

102,913

28%

VI

320,284

68,749

21%

VII

280,738

44,626

16%

VIII

284,610

77,664

27%

IX

313,454

119,688

38%

X

271,239

117,899

43%

XI

259,116

48,606

19%

XII

236,165

44,438

19%

CARAGA

183,691

95,038

52%

ARMM

429,937

7,998

2%

4,353,597

963,978

22%

TOTAL

Source: Basic data from the Department of Social Welfare and Development Note.*DSWD indicates this in the database as “Number of Active Pantawid Pamilya Beneficiary Households by Region” **Number of 4Ps families is as of August 26, 2015. Number of SLP Families is from January 2011 to December 2015.

There is a large difference in the percentage of MD Track beneficiaries and EF Track participants. Table 6 also shows that out of the 963,978 4Ps families served in the SLP, 86% (830,638 4Ps families) have been served through the Microenterprise Development (MD) Track while only 14% (133,340 4Ps families) have been served through the Employment Facilitation (EF) Track; regions VI and VIII have the highest number of 4Ps families served in the EF Track at 26,308 and 23,456 families, respectively.

Table 6. Number of Families Served per Track from January 2011 to December 2015 CY 2011 to 2015 Physical Target

Region

Micro-enterprise Development (MD) 4Ps

Non-4Ps

MD TOTAL

Employment Facilitation (EF)*

4Ps Grand Total

Total

% to Physical Target

NCR

31,764

24,143

3,051

27,194

11,085

38,279

35,228

111%

CAR

23,153

19,197

3,082

22,279

3,174

25,453

22,371

97%

I

35,308

39,032

4,231

43,263

2,816

46,079

41,848

119%

II

20,765

25,368

3,008

28,376

2,021

30,397

27,389

132%

III

42,452

42,094

12,854

54,948

2,186

57,134

44,280

104%

IV-A

45,162

16,633

3,192

19,825

914

20,739

17,547

39%

IV-B

73,207

44,558

4,497

49,055

3,138

52,193

47,696

65%

V

102,363

89,043

3,144

92,187

13,870

106,057

102,913

101%

VI

57,923

42,441

7,196

49,637

26,308

75,945

68,749

119%

VII

60,833

39,075

12,681

51,756

5,551

57,307

44,626

73%

30

VIII

83,750

54,208

36,834

91,042

23,456

114,498

77,664

93%

IX

101,817

108,390

4,573

112,963

11,298

124,261

119,688

118%

X

88,688

112,676

8,985

121,661

5,223

126,884

117,899

133%

XI

47,180

39,381

6,658

46,039

9,225

55,264

48,606

103%

XII

37,182

35,980

1,728

37,708

8,458

46,166

44,438

120%

CARAGA

76,882

90,421

4,224

94,645

4,617

99,262

95,038

124%

ARMM

42,485

7,998

23,392

31,390

-

31,390 7,998 19% 1,107,308 TOTAL 970,914 830,638 143,330 973,968 133,340 963,978 99% Source: Table from the Sustainable Livelihood Program – National Project Management Office (with heading changes: Pantawid to 4Ps, Non-Pantawid to Non-4Ps; Pantawid Pamilya Families to 4Ps, % to % to Physical Target) Note. Data Reconciliation as of January 15, 2016 *All EF Track beneficiaries in the data are 4Ps beneficiaries based on excel file computation.

B. SLP Partnerships Developed Table 7 shows the types of partnership interventions developed in the SLP for either or both MD and EF Tracks (data as of June 2015): (1) training, (2) employment, (3) market linking, (4) financial services, (5) non-financial assets, (6) networking, and (7) other interventions.49 The intervention on training EF Track participants, as well as MD Track participants, involves 449 partners. For the actual employment of EF Track participants, the SLP has 275 partners (e.g. employers, manpower service providers, etc.). Table 7. Types of SLP Partnerships Developed Training

Employm ent

NCR

31

33

6

3

CAR

13

17

-

16

10

-

5

I

34

42

5

6

5

-

22

II

8

5

-

3

-

-

2

III

33

21

8

2

-

1

7

IV-A

11

5

1

2

-

-

1

IV-B

55

12

2

9

8

-

13

REGIONS

Market Linking

Financial Services

Non-Financial Assets

Networ king

-

Other Interventions

-

1

V

18

44

1

50

19

-

-

VI

30

8

3

8

1

-

2

VII

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

VIII

21

14

-

7

4

-

5

IX

28

9

2

4

25

-

6

X

5

1

1

5

-

1

2

XI

37

21

1

2

3

1

2

XII

14

22

-

11

2

1

1

49

Data is as of June 2015. According to SLP-NPMO staff, under “Market Linking,” some partners assist in the enhancement of products and services based on the preferences of end users before linking the products to the market. There are also partners which converse first with private institutions to know what is in demand, and from there, they help the communities develop the products.

31

CARAGA ARMM Grand Total

111

21

13

26

11

5

31

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

449

275

43

154

88

9

100

Source: Database of Sustainable Livelihood Program - National Program Management Office Notes. *Data is as of June 2015 *Some of the SLP partners fall in multiple partnership intervention types so the sum of the totals is not equivalent to the total number of partners in the database provided.

C. Employment of 4Ps Beneficiaries Served in the SLP Table 8 shows the distribution of SLP-served 4Ps beneficiaries in terms of their employers.50 The employers of the beneficiaries have been categorized by the research team into: (1) national government (NG), (2) local government unit (LGU), (3) private employer, (4) non-governmental organization (NGO), (5) and unidentified employer.51 The private sector and the national government are big employers, having 19,346 and 14,481 beneficiaries employed. Table 8 also shows the distribution of SLP-served 4Ps beneficiaries based on their occupation. The employment of the EF Track-4Ps beneficiaries have been categorized as follows: (1) technicians, (2) clerks, (3) service workers, (4) laborers, (5) plant and machine operators/ factory workers, (6) agricultural workers, (7) overseas filipino workers (OFWs), (8) other occupations, and (9) unidentified employment.52 There are many beneficiaries who are laborers (18,919) and service workers (13,667). Table 8. Distribution of 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries (Individuals) Per Employer Type and Occupation Group NG

Private

NGO

Unidentified

2 92 782

15 447 2,120

172 242 9,235

0 5 29

15 51 1,501

204 837 13,667

11,169

1,473

4,652

955

670

18,919

136 992 0 1,044 264

12 35 0 35 881

1,708 2,798 0 115 424

134 115 0 20 20

147 110 358 20 322

2,137 4,050 358 1,234 1,911

EMPLOYMENT

Technicians Clerks Service workers Laborers Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory workers Agricultural workers OFWs Other Occupations Unidentified

Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

LGU

50

For the distribution, the research team used the raw monitoring data from the DSWD again as basis. The data was forwarded to the research team on August 2015. It is partial/incomplete as DSWD is currently reconstructing their 2011-2015 database. The employment of the beneficiaries was tagged by the research team in terms of employer type and occupation group. 51 Unidentified employers have been tagged as such because of vague inputs in the database. 52 Unidentified employments have been tagged as such because of vague inputs in the database. All other employments which are not included in any other groups were tagged “other occupations” (e.g. those under the National Greening Program’s Cash for Work scheme are under “Other Occupations”).

32

GRAND TOTAL (PHILIPPINES)

14,481

5,018

19,346

1278

3,194

43,317

Source: Basic data from the Sustainable Livelihood Program - National Project Management Office *The monitoring data was forwarded to the research team on August 2015. It is partial/incomplete as DSWD is currently reconstructing their 2011-2015 database. *Refer to Annex 5 for regional distribution of the data.

D. Utilization of the Pre-Employment Assistance Fund Table 9 shows that as of November 25, 2015, there is a total of 6,637 SLP families which were served through the PEAF. The regions with the highest number of served families are Regions XI and V with 2,281 and 2,084 families, respectively. On the other hand, no family is recorded to have been served through the PEAF in Regions II, III, IX, and ARMM. PEAF implementation started only in CY 2015. Comparing number of families given PEAF with the families served through EF for the period January to December 2015, overall PEAF utilization is less than 20%. However, there are several regions where PEAF utilization exceeds those served for the period. It is possible though that served EF families in the previous years have been able to find guaranteed employment during the period in review.

Table 9. Regional Distribution of Families Served through the PEAF and PEAF Utilization (as of November 25, 2015)

Region NCR CAR I II III IV-A IV-B V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII CARAGA ARMM TOTAL

Families served through the EF Track from January to November 25, 2015 1,632 800 928 200 31 408 4,917 1,313 1,875 14,338 1,778 1,934 2,286 788 516 33,744

Families served through the PEAF as of November 25, 2015 297 69 239 31 546 2,084 885 36 24 1 2,281 107 37 6,637

% Regional Distribution 4.5% 1.0% 3.6% 0.5% 8.2% 31.4% 13.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 34.4% 1.6% 0.6% 100%

% PEAF utilization 18.2% 8.6% 25.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 133.8% 42.4% 67.4% 1.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 99.8% 13.6% 7.2% 0.0% 19.7%

33

Source: Basic data of number of families from the Sustainable Livelihood Program - National Project Management Office

E. Best Employment Facilitation Track Models Bangon Kabuhayan is an annual activity of the DSWD that recognizes best SLP programs and Pantawid beneficiaries. It aims to showcase the success of the Pantawid Pamilya beneficiaries through the implementation of the Sustainable Livelihood Program. In the annual activity, employment models, as well as enterprise models, are evaluated based on the following criteria53: 1. Impact- This refers to the extent of positive change brought by the enterprise/employment to the well-being and quality of life of the participants. This also includes the capacity of the model to contribute to the development of the community. 2. Innovation- This refers to the use of a unique and innovative approach/ technology in implementation, which result to efficiency, productivity, and quality results. 3. Economic Viability- This refers to the capacity of the enterprise/employment model to financially support itself and produce positive income/net profit through the effective use of resources. This also includes the capacity of the enterprise/employment model to expand its operations. 4. Sustainability- This refers to the ability of the enterprise/employment model to sustain its operations and productivity and perform self-correcting mechanisms in spite of unforeseen risks and stressors. This also includes the success of the model in performing environment protection measures. 5. Replicability- This refers to the ability of the enterprise/employment model to be replicated in similar areas within the same timeline or less. The model may also hold some attributes that can be adopted by a general context. 6. Functional Collaboration- This refers to the evident convergence among key stakeholders of the enterprise/employment. The good practice encourages active participation and empowerment of the program participants, through their involvement in planning and decision-making. 7. Gender Responsiveness- this refers to the initiatives of the enterprise/employment to promote gender equality and women’s participation in the development process, which leads to improved relations between men and women. Annex 6 lists down the best EF models of selected regions in 2015, indicating the name of the EF project and the region to which the project is found. During the awarding ceremony, the first place for best employment went to Better Employment through Skills Training (BEST) of Murcia/Himamaylan City/Ilog, Negros Occidental (Region VI); the second place and people’s choice award went to Medina Massage: “Feel the Touch, Be Relaxed” of Medina, Misamis Oriental (Region X); the third place went to Pre-Licensing Traning Course (PLTC) for Security Guards of Agutaya, Palawan (Region IV-B). The results of the selection shows that the best models of EF in terms of the 53

This information was provided by the SLP-NPMO.

34

criteria provided are those partnerships developed with employment-directed training institutions. Moreover, an academic or school based training institute is a plus factor since it has flexible training facilities, can offer wider training program and employment choices.

F. Feedback from EF Track Participants The EF Track participants, who were interviewed, have a positive impression on the program. All of them were grateful for the assistance provided by the DSWD and relayed that it is of great help to them. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement in the provision of assistance given the participants’ comments and recommendations. The EF Track participants who were already linked to employment said that it has positively affected their families’ lives. One of the Masbate beneficiaries relayed that before participating in the program, she had been looking for employment for months since her college graduation. Through the SLP, she was finally able to get a job as an encoder for Listahanan, the data management system of DSWD, and was even promoted as area supervisor. Meanwhile, the interviewed Marikina beneficiaries who are currently street sweepers under the Trabahong Lansangan Program said that they are contented with their jobs; they do not think that they would get employed in the private sector because of a number of factors (e.g. age, educational attainment, etc.). The interviewed participants who underwent skills training are also satisfied with the assistance provided to them under the SLP. Those who are already finished with their courses passed the assessment of TESDA and are now National Certificate (NC) I/II holders.54 According to them, the certificate made it easier for them to look for jobs locally and overseas as employers of skilled workers would usually have this as a requirement. Additionally, some of the beneficiaries said that after training, they are immediately linked to employment. There are even cases where beneficiaries are hired as training instructors by the technical-vocational schools that they have attended to. Overall, the interviewed EF Track participants had positive comments on the interventions that are provided to them. But some of the beneficiaries have still mentioned aspects which can be improved on by the DSWD. For instance, the DPWH Trabahong Lansangan workers are under a sixmonth job contract. If given the opportunity, some of them would prefer an extension of their contracts and eventually be regular workers of DPWH. Meanwhile, some of those who are under skills training have requested that the training last for six months to one year in order for them to grasp and appreciate all the lessons. They also request that more regular and non-contractual jobs be offered to them so that they will have a stable source of income.

54

NC I is issued by TESDA to an individual who: (1) performs routine and predictable tasks, (2) has little judgment, and (3) works under supervision. Meanwhile, NC II is issued to an individual who: (1) performs a prescribed range of functions involving known routines and procedures, (2) has limited choice and complexity of functions, and (3) has little accountability TESDA (n.d.).

35

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations The SLP has been designed as a labor market program (LMP) that is integrated with a social safety net program (SSNP) such as the 4Ps. The rationale of this integrated approach is to add value to 4Ps by bringing the beneficiaries closer to reaching the poverty threshold and enabling them to be engaged in sustainable livelihoods. Getting employment or expanding livelihood would provide additional income to the beneficiaries on top of the incentives provided to them by the social safety net policies (e.g. cash grants). Additionally, the LMP could lessen the risk of beneficiaries being too dependent on the incentives provided through 4Ps. This is also in line the emerging global model for a successful graduation program which consists of simultaneous interventions as discussed in Section III (see also Banejee et al, 2015). There are several types of labor market programs. In the case of SLP, the interventions are classified into two main tracks microenterprise development (MD) and employment facilitation (EF). Within EF, there are different forms, e.g. direct employment programs, job matching services and employment subsidies (e.g. PEAF). A key activity in SLP is the targeting and the sorting of 4Ps beneficiaries into each track and identifying projects or interventions within each track. Participation to the SLP is mainly determined by age and willingness to participate in SLP. On the other hand, selection to the MD or EF track is mainly the choice of the participant. Profile information on the 4Ps families is limited to age and educational attainment and SLP PDOs do not undertake in depth assessments of participants suitability to each track. This limitation would likely affect the probability of success of enterprise and employment interventions since the participant’s choice can be influenced by factors other than his/her skills, experience, interest and ability. There are contextual and personal issues such as distant jobs, limited job opportunities, physical attributes and family responsibilities that affect participant’s choice of SLP track and program modality. Moreover, weaknesses in program design such as funding issues, weak employment partnerships and perverse incentives could distort beneficiary choices. For instance, PDO’s performance is based on employment outputs either through livelihood or jobs. Given the greater effort to find jobs than to establish microenterprise projects and the average number of participants being handled by the SLP PDOs (2016: around 229 caseload; 2015: around 800 caseload), PDOs tend to direct participants to choose the MD track. The MD track is also the default program for participants provided with skills training that are not link to specific jobs. The skill trainings for MD may not also necessarily lead to production of marketable products. Within the EF track, building employment partnerships could also affect program success. DSWD field offices have developed different partnerships in particular, direct employment in national government programs; employment facilitation with PESO and private manpower services; and employment directed training. Most jobs have been provided through direct employment in government programs specifically public works. However, beneficiaries employed in public works are usually retirees or older beneficiaries that have been out of the labor market for a long time. This type of job tends to be more effective as a safety net rather than a scheme to build employment experience for gainful

36

employment in the future for younger Pantawid beneficiaries who are being assisted to find longer term sustainable livelihood. Employment-directed trainings showed positive results with participants mainly the youth and with higher probability of employment for those trained since these trainings were linked to specific jobs. The chances of gainful and sustainable employment are better. Given its longer term impact, employment-directed trainings should be given more attention. On the other hand, DSWD’s experience with employment facilitation through manpower services varies across region. It is observed that job availability in the locality influence the functionality of DSWD partnership with manpower service providers such as PESO. The PESO provides a good platform for SLP in cases when the PESO is functioning, that is, the agency is active in getting local employment. Otherwise, a non-active PESO also results in a non-functioning DSWD and PESO partnership. In the latter case, the DSWD deals directly with private companies for the employment of the SLP participants. This could be inefficient since job matching is not a primary mandate of DSWD thus may entail more resources and efforts for the SLP PDOs and DSWD. On the other hand, politics can also influence the functionality between PESO and SLP. The local PESO may not necessarly recognized or give preference to 4Ps beneficiaries which could affect PDOs outputs. Some LGUs also think that government services should also be channeled to vulnerable families other than 4Ps beneficiaries. Given the above findings, the implementation of SLP can be improved in the following areas: 1) Develop a better mechanism or indicators-based system to effectively identify and sort participants to the SLP tracks. 2) Improve on the EF Track design to increase job opportunities; and as recommended by Ballesteros et al. in 2015, improve takeup that is more in line with proportion of wage workers in the labor market. ◦

Focus on employment-directed training



Use public works primarily as safety net program and work-experience gaining opportunity



Vary training budget based on quality or employment training needs rather than fixed cost per participant



Reduce PDO caseload and address incentive problem (e.g. use metric of performance tied to rate of employment (e.g. % employed from training participants) rather than number employed



Develop PESO as a platform of partnership on regional or provincial level in areas outside NCR



Develop more opportunities and modalities for linking with other employment programs of government agencies particularly by DOLE



Assess special needs of 4Ps families for other interventions to improve employability of 4Ps (e.g. personality development). 37

Overall, the EF Track interventions support beneficiaries to improve the chances of getting employed. However, the matching of labor demand and supply is the bigger challenge for DSWD PDOs specifically as SLP-EF performance is based on the number of participants with employment of at least three months. This raises the issue on the role of DSWD in job matching services. It is important to note that a number of other labor market programs have already been rolled out in the Philippines in order to increase employment to the marginalized and vulnerable sectors (see Box 3). Many of these programs are administered/managed by the DOLE. A review of these programs and possible linking with the SLP is recommended. There is a need to define DSWD’s role in facilitating employment relative to other government agencies and labor programs.

Box 3. Labor Market Programs Implemented by Other NGAs A. Phil-JobNet (Department of Labor and Employment) The Phil-JobNet is an internet-based job and applicant matching system which is a facility of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and is being maintained by the Bureau of Local Employment (BLE). The system was launched in 1998 and underwent revision, aiming to cover relevant labor market and involving as many stakeholders as possible (DOLE, n.d.). B.

DOLE Integrated Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program The DOLE Integrated Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (DILEEP) aims to contribute to inclusive growth through massive job generation and poverty reduction. The DILEEP is implemented through Direct Administration (DOLE) or through an Accredited Co-Partner (people’s organizations, workers’ associations, unions/federations, state universitites and colleges/higher educational institutions/national technical-vocational schools, local government units, cooperatives, and national government agencies). It has two component programs: (1) KABUHAYAN Program, and (2) Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TUPAD). The KABUHAYAN Program gives priority to: (1) self-employed workers who are unable to earn sufficient income, (2) marginalized and landless farmers, (3) unpaid family workers, (4) parents of child laborers, (5) low-wage and seasonal workers, and (5) workers displaced or to be displaced due to natural and man-made disasters. The participants would be provided with trainings on business planning, business management, and production skills. They would also be provided with a start-up capital in the form of raw materials, equipment, tolls, and jigs, and other support services. On top of that, they would be receiving social security through enrolment in the SSS, or PhilHealth, or microinsurance for the first three months, included in the total project cost. The TUPAD Program, meanwhile, is a community-based (municipality/barangay) package of assistance providing emergency employment to displaced workers, underemployed, and unemployed poor from 10 to 30 days. They would be provided with social security in the form of group microinsurance for the duration of the work contract, basic orientation on safety and health, and personal protective equipment. The participants would be working on social community projects (e.g. debris clearing), economic community projects (e.g. repair and/or rehabilitation of farm-to-market roads), and agroforestry community projects (e.g. tree planting). They would be paid 100% of the prevailing private sector minimum wage in the area/locality subject to time records. Finally, the participants would be able to access free skills trainings conducted by the Technical Education and Skills Devleopment Authority or any of its accredited training institutions under the Training for Work Scholarship Program. The trainings are expected to prepare them for self- and wage employment (DOLE Department Order No. 137-14, Series of 2014).

38

C.

Kasanayan at Hanapbuhay Program (Department of Labor and Employment) The Kasanayan at Hanapbuhay Program of the DOLE was created in 2004 with the objectives of: (1) providing opportunity to new entrants of the labor force to acquire experience and skills, (2) generating commitment from enterprises in developing the skills of the Filipino workforce, and (3) facilitating the absorption of apprentices into the regular workforce after their apprenticeship. Unemployed persons of 15 years old and above could apply to participating enterprises and their apprenticeship shall not be less than four months but not more than six months. They shall receive a wage of not less than 75% of the prevailing minimum wage and benefits (e.g. social security, health benefits, etc.). Meanwhile, the participating enterprises would be entitled either to the payment of 75% of the prevailing minimum wage to apprentices or an additional deduction from taxable income of ½ of the value of labor training expenses incurred for developing the productivity and efficiency of apprentices (DOLE Department Order No. 68-04, Series of 2004). D. JobStart Philippines (Department of Labor and Employment) JobStart Philippines is a “full-cycle employment facilitation service,” which is a partnership program of the DOLE, Asian Development Bank, and Canadian International Development Agency (DOLE, 2014). The program, which was piloted in 2014, aims to improve employability among the youth by giving them career guidance, life skills and technical training, and internship. Eligibility is based on the following qualifications: (1) 18 to 24 years old, (2) at least high school graduates, (3) without more than one year of work experience or currently without employment, and (4) not enrolled in a study or training. The participants would receive Php 200 to Php 300 during their training and 75% of the minimum wage during the sixmonth internship. Their employers, meanwhile, would receive Php9,000 in training fee per intern (DOLE, 2014). E.

Special Program for Employment of Students (Department of Labor and Employment) The Special Program for Employment of Students (SPES) of the DOLE is being implemented under Republic Act No. 7323. The program targets poor but deserving students and out-of-school-youth, and encourages their employment during the summer, Christmas vacation, or anytime for students in the tertiary, technical, or vocational level. Employers shall pay 60% of the salary or wage in cash, and the remaining 40% by the government in the form of a voucher which can be used to pay tuition fees and books (Republic Act No. 9547). The students will also be insured under the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) (Bureau of Labor and Employment, n.d.) F.

Dual Training System (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority) The Dual Training System (DTS) of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) is being implemented under Republic Act No. 7686 (Dual Training System Act of 1994). The DTS provides students with theories at schools or training centers while also providing them with practical training at companies or workshops. 40% of the time will be spent on learning the theories and the rest will be spent on training. The trainees shall receive at least 75% of the applicable minimum daily wage for the number of days they spent training (Addendum to TESDA Circular No. 31 series of 2012). G.

Training for Work Scholarship Program (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority) The Training for Work Scholarship Program (TWSP) of TESDA provides free training and assessment, prioritizing individuals from regions or provinces where the absolute number of poor residents and the poverty incidence are high (TESDA, n.d.). The TWSP was launched in 2006 with the objectives of: (1) driving technical and vocational education and training (TVET) provision to available jobs through incentives and appropriate training programs directly connected to exisiting jobs for immediate employment, and (2) building and strenghtening the capacity and capability of TVET institutions in expanding and improving the

39

delivery of quality, efficient, and relevant training programs that meet job requirements (Tesda, n.d).

40

References Almeida, R., Arbelaez, J., Honorati, M., Kuddo, A., Lohmann, T., Ovadiya, M., Pop, L., Puerta, M.L.S., & Weber, M. (2012). Improving access to jobs and earnings opportunities: the role of activation and graduation policies in developing countries. Background paper for the World Bank 2012-2022 Social Protection and Labor Strategy. Almeida, R., Orr, L., & Robalino, D. (2014) Wage subsidies in developing countries as a tool to build human capital: design and implementation issues. IZA Journal of Labor Policy 2014, 3:12. Bajracharya, P. & Joshi, N. (2012). Focused evaluation of micro enterprise development programme (a joint CIDA-AusAID evaluation). Balboni, C., Bandiera, O., Burgess, R., & Kaul, U. (2015). Transforming the economic lives of the ultrapoor. IGC Growth Brief Series 004. London. Ballesteros, M., Orbeta, A., Llanto, G., Rosellon, M., Magtibay, J., Bolanos, L., & Salazar, C. (2015). Assessment of the DSWD SEA-K strategy. Discussion Paper Series No. 2015-09. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Goldberg, N., Karlan, D., Osei, R., Parienté , W., Shapiro, J., Thuysbaert, B., & Udry, C. (2015). A multifaceted program causes lasting progress for the very poor: evidence from six countries. Science, 348. Betcherman, G., Olivas, K., & Dar, A. (2004). Impacts of active labor market programs: new evidence from evaluations and particular attention to developing and transition countries. The World Bank: Social Protection Discussion Paper Series. BRAC (2013). Tackling extreme povety: from Bangladesh to a global agenda. Retrieved from http://www.brac.net/sites/default/files/Tackling%20extreme%20poverty.pdf. Brown, Alessio J. G.; Köttl, Johannes (2012) : Active labor market programs employment gain or fiscal drain?, Kiel Working Paper, No. 1785 Bureau of Labor and Employment (n.d.). Special Program for Empoyment of Students. [Pamphlet]. Carneiro, P., Galasso, E., & Ginja, R. (2009). The impact of providing psycho-social support to indigent families and increasing their access to social services: evaluating Chile Solidario. Dar, A. & Tzannatos, Z. (1999). Active labor market programs: a review of the evidence from evaluations. de Montesquiou, A. & Sheldon, T., with DeGiovanni, F. & Hashemi, S. (2014). From extreme poverty to sustainable livelihoods: a technical guide to the graduation approach. Consultative Group to Assist the Poor; Ford Foundation. Department of Labor and Employment (2004). Department Order No. 68-04. Series of 2004. Department of Labor and Employment (2014). Baldoz says half of unemployment could go down if youth unemployment is addressed. Retrieved from http://www.dole.gov.ph/news/view/2517. Department of Labor and Employment (2014). Department Order No. 137-14. Series of 2014. Department of Labor and Employment (n.d.). The PHIL-JobNet System (from the 2001 PHIL-JobNet

41

User's Manual). Department of Environment and Natural Resources (n.d.) National Greening Program. Retrieved from http://www.denr.gov.ph/priority-programs/national-greening-program.html. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2013). Sustainable Livelihood Program: Field Operations Manual. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2014). Memorandum Circular No. 22. Series of 2014. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2015). Bangon Kabuhayan 2015: sama-sama sa landas ng pag-unlad. [Pamphlet]. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2015). Memorandum Circular No. 10. Series of 2015. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2015). Sustainable Livelihood Program: Field Operations Manual. Department of Social Welfare and Development (n.d.) The Social Welfare and Development Indicators (SWDI) Toolkit. Department of Social Welfare and Development (n.d.) The Enhanced Social Welfare and Development Indicators (SWDI). Department of Social Welfare and Development. (database) Department of Tourism (2013, August 8). DOT, DSWD, and USAID launch One-Step Project. Official Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/08/dot-dswd-and-usaid-launch-one-stepproject/. El-Zoghbi, M. & de Montesquiou, A., with Hashemi, S. (2009). Creating pathways for the poorest: early lessons on implementing the graduation model. Washington, DC, USA: Consultative Group to Assist the Poor. Emran, M. S., Robano, V., Smith, S. (2009). Assessing the frontiers of ultra-poverty reduction: evidence from CFPR/TUP, an innovative program in Bangladesh. Executive Order No. 26, s. 2011. Executive Order No. 183 Gonzales, E. (2014). Consultancy for the short-term employment guarantee scheme of the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP). Final Report (DFAT). Government of Nepal (n.d.). Micro enterprise development for poverty allevation: introduction. Ministry of Rural Development (2014). Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005: report to the people. Morrison, N. (2006). Active labor market programs: evidence from evaluations. World Bank: Employment Policy Primer. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Jersey Job Club: get hired faster. Retrieved from http://www.jobs4jersey.com/documents/JobSeekers/JJCGetHiredFasterWD86.pdf. Official Gazette (n.d.). Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. Official Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.gov.ph/programs/conditional-cash-transfer/.

42

Philippine Statistical Authority (2014). Labor Force Survey April 2014 round. Rabbani, M., Prakash, V., & Sulaiman, M. (2006). Impact assessment of CFPR/TUP: a descriptive analysis based on 2002-2005 panel data. CFPR/TUP Working Paper Series No. 12. Mohakhali, Dhaka: BRAC; Ottawa: Aga Khan Foundation Canada. Republic Act No. 10691. Republic Act No. 7323 Republic Act No. 8759. Republic Act No. 9547 Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (2012). Addendum to TESDA Circular No. 31. Series of 2012. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (2015). Tesda Cash for Training Project (C4Tp). Retrieved from http://tesdatrainingcourses.com/tesda-cash-training-project-c4tp.html. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (n.d.). Implementing Guidelines for Training for Work Scholarship Program (TWSP). Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (n.d.). Philippine TVET Qualification and Certification System. Retrieved from http://www.tesda.gov.ph/uploads/File/PHILIPPINE%20TVET%20QUALIFICATION%20AND%20CERTIFI CATON%20SYSTEM.pdf. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (n.d.). Scholarship and student assistance programs. The World Bank (2013). Graduation Program: creating pathways out of extreme poverty into sustainable livelihoods. Retrieved from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2013/04/04/graduation-program-creating-pathways-out-ofextreme-poverty-into-sustainable-livelihoods Villanueva, R. (2014, July 31). DENR, SM sign deal to reforest 2 cities, 4 provinces. The Philippine Star. Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com/nation/2014/07/31/1352058/denr-sm-sign-deal-reforest2-cities-4-provinces. Yasmin, R. (n.d.). Challenging the frontiers of poverty reduction: experiences from a BRAC Program. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/poverty/PovertyForum/Papers/Rabeya%20Yasmin%20.ppt.

43

Annexes Annex 1. CGAP-Ford Foundation Graduation Pilots (2006 to 2014) Fonkoze Chemin Lavi Miyo Program (Haiti)

Project implementer: Fonkoze Project partners: Concern Worldwide and Partners in Health Location: Rural Boukan Kare, Twoudino, and Lagonav Pilot start date: 2006 Pilot end date: 2008 No. Participants: 150

Consumption support: US$5.50/week (based on price of a kilo of rice a day) for 8 months Savings: Individual savings accounts at Fonkoze Livelihoods: Chicken, goats, and small trade Other components: Construction materials for a 9x9 meter home, a latrine and water filter; confidence-building, enterprise management and life skills training, plus support from Village Assistance Committees; free healthcare at Partners in Health Estimated cost: US$1,933/participant

Bandhan Targeting the Hardcore Poor Program (India)

Project implementer: Bandhan Project partners: None Location: West Bengal Start date: 2007 Pilot end date: 2009 No. Participants: 300

Consumption support: US$2.30/week for up to 10 months Savings: Weekly savings of US$0.20 Livelihoods: Goats, cows, and small trade Other components: Veterinary and other livestock services; health services (links to UNICEF for sanitary latrines, hospital visits); help to members to access government services Estimated cost: US$331/participant

Trickle Up Ultra Poor Program (India)

Project implementer: Trickle Up Project partner: Human Development Centre Location: West Bengal Pilot start date: 2007 Pilot end date: 2010 No. Participants: 300

Consumption support: US$2.25 /week for 6 months Financial service: Savings with SHGs (each SHG has a savings account with the State Bank of India) Livelihoods: Goats, rice paddy, fish, and small trade Other components: Preventive health care education, neo/post-natal care, sanitary latrines and community veterinarians, support from Village Assistance Committees. Estimated cost: US$674/participant

44

Swayam Krishi Sangam (SKS) Ultra Poor Program (India)

Project implementer: SKS NGO Project partners: Swiss Development Cooperation, NM Budharani Trust, and others Location: Andhra Pradesh Pilot start date: 2007 Pilot end date: 2010 No. Participants: 426

Consumption support: US$18 on a “per need basis” over 18 months Savings: Individual savings accounts at post offices; grain bank scheme in 50 villages Livelihoods: Goats, buffaloes, land cultivation, trade, and tailoring Other components: Free health consultations; eye and hemoglobin camps; access to government veterinary and health support Estimated cost: US$571/participant

Pakistan Graduation Pilot

Project implementers: Aga Khan Planning and Building Services Pakistan (AKPBSP), Badin Rural Development Society (BRDS), Indus Earth Trust (IET), Sindh Agricultural and Forestry Workers Coordinating Organization (SAFWCO), and Orangi Charitable Trust (OCT) Project partner: Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund Location: Coastal Sindh Pilot start date: 2007 Pilot end date: 2010 No. Participants: 1,000 (5 people x 200 hh)

Consumption support: Food or cash transfers of US$12/month for 12 months Savings: Savings with village groups Livelihoods: Petty trade, crafts, goats, cows, and other livestock Other components: Health care, water, sanitation Estimated cost: US$800/participant

Mejoramiento Integral de la Familia Rural (Honduras)

Project implementers: Organización de Desarollo Empresarial Feminino (ODEF) and Plan Honduras Project partner: Plan Canada Location: Lempira Pilot start date: 2009 No. Participants: 800 households

Consumption support: US$17/month for 6 months Savings: Individual accounts at ODEF Livelihoods: Coffee, cereals, vegetables, pigs, and fishery Other components: Two income-generating activities; assets; three meals per day; access to safe water, latrines, improved stoves; Alcoholics Anonymous meetings; access to financial services; children attending school; increased rights awareness Estimated cost: US$1,300/hh

Peru Graduation Pilot

Project implementers: Arawiwa and Plan Peru Project partner: Plan Canada Location: Cusco Pilot start date: 2010 No. Participants: 800 households

Consumption support: US$34 for 9 months, building on government conditional cash transfer program Savings: Village community banks implemented by Arawiwa Livelihoods: Livestock, small trade, and cultivation Other components: Enterprise training; social work (including domestic violence, child protection and rights); health prevention Estimated cost: US$2,480/hh

45

Ethiopia Graduation Pilot

Project implementer: Relief Society of Tigray (REST) Project partners: Dedebit Credit and Savings Institute (DECSI), USAID, the Italian Development Cooperation, and the European Commission Location: Tigray Pilot start date: 2010 No. Participants: 500 households

Consumption support: 15kg of wheat/ month for 3 months and equivalent in cash for 3 other months, building on government’s food for work program Savings: Individual savings accounts at DECSI Livelihoods: Sheep, goats, beekeeping, vegetable cultivation, and other Other components: Access to REST’s water security, health and education programs Estimated cost: US$800/hh

Yemen Graduation Pilot

Project implementers: Social Welfare Fund (SWF) and Social Fund for Development (SFD) Project partners: None Location: Aden, Lahij, and Taiz Pilot start date: 2010 No. Participants: 500 households

Consumption support: US$24 per month building on government cash transfer program Savings: Individual and group accounts at the post office and VSLAs Livelihoods: Goats, cows, small trade, and other Other components: Access to mosquito nets, school bags, and school uniforms Estimated cost: US$450/hh

Ghana Graduation from Ultra Poverty Program

Project implementers: Presbyterian Agricultural Services and Innovations for Poverty Action Project partners: 3ie Location: Tamale, East Mamprusi, and Bulsa Pilot start date: 2010 No. Participants: 650 households

Consumption support: US$2.50-3.75 per week for six months Savings: Individual accounts at rural banks Livelihoods: Goats and poultry; guinea corn and goats; maize and poultry; maize and pigs; poultry and goats; goats and maize; rice and poultry; shea butter and poultry; shea butter and maize Other components: Access to the National Health Insurance Scheme Estimated cost: US$1,800/hh

Source: de Montesquiou, A. & Sheldon, T., with DeGiovanni, F. & Hashemi, S. (2014)

Annex 2. Sample Barangay Ranking Matrix

General Information

Project Concept 1: Employment for skilled participants in hotels / restaurants

Number of Pantawid Pamilya families Number of self-sufficient families Number of subsistence families Priority Opportunities for the City/ Municipality - ST: food and beverage service, driving, tour guiding, maintenance, housekeeping through TESDA, DOT, or other training service provider - PEAF: documents preparation and acquisition through agency-to-agency coordination - PHIL-JobNet, job fair, and direct referral through PESO

A 768 12 168

B 587 4 55

C 642 13 106

D 686 19 299

214

124

187

154

46

Project Concept 2: Employment for skilled participants in constructionrelated opportunities

Project Concept 3: Group enterprise formation for food service provision

Project Concept 4: Group enterprise formation for transportation service

- ST: construction-related work through TESDA and private partner - CBLA: farm-to-market roads - Employment in KC-NCDDP sub-project on day care center establishment - Employment through DPWH linkage to contractors - Employment through DepEd linkage to contractors (for school buildings, chairs, tables, shelves, etc.) - ST: commercial cooking, food and beverage service, basic accounting and business management - CBLA: enterprise operations facility - SCF: financial capital acquisition and materials / supplies acquisition - Linkage to SFP through CCM - Linkage to KC-NCDDP sub-projects - Linkage to LGU and public school canteen and day care center - Business registration and licensing - ST: basic accounting and business management - SCF: financial capital acquisition and automobile acquisition - Linkage to DOLE, DOE, and DOT for financial capital assistance and accreditation - Business registration and licensing, and drivers’ licensing - Linkage to LGU, hotels and resorts, groceries, and sarisari stores as official provider of transportation / delivery service

163

85

91

117

69

74

82

76

39

29

26

32

Total indicative number of participants for priority projects

485

312

386

379

Total indicative number of participants for other projects

283

275

256

307

1

4

2

3

Barangay Rank

Source: SLP-FOM, Department of Social Welfare and Development (2015) Notes from the SLP-FOM (2015): *The priority opportunities resulting from the Opportunity Identification Matrix have been incorporated as project concepts. Some opportunities identified have been merged to allow more participants to be involved, pool and maximize resources, and expand the market. *Although the sample tool only lists four (4) barangays and four (4) project concepts, the actual accomplishment of the tool should include all barangays and all identified priority opportunities (there is no minimum / maximum number of priority opportunities).

47

Annex 3. Participant Profiling Template

Barangay PSGC code

Region

Province

Municipality

Barangay

Pantawid Pamilya Member Roster ID #

Pantawid Pamilya HH ID #

Last Name

First Name

Middle Name

Extension Name

HH Head / Relationship to HH Head

Birthday

Gender

Educational Attainment

Previous and / or current occupation (mark with * if current)

PWD

IP

Certified Skill 1

Certified Skill 2

Uncertified Skill 1

Uncertified Skill 2

Skills willing to acquire*

Suggested Track

Remarks

Source: Sustainable Livelihood Program-National Project Management Office Note from the SLP-NPMO: This template should be maintained and updated regularly by the assigned PDO in the specified municipality.

Annex 4. PEAF Primary Purpose/Coverage Accessing/ Securing Pre-Employment Expenses

Travel expense (fare and food) of participant going to and from the place where the documents will be secured Birth certificate Passport Certificate of No Marriage School diplomas Certificates from formal or non-formal academic skills trainings attended Medical or physical examination and laboratory fees NBI clearance Barangay or police clearances Driver's license Tax Identification Number

Approximate Amount/cost* Minimum 50 pesos/day

Maximum 100 pesos/day

180 pesos 950 pesos 195 pesos 500 pesos 500 pesos

350 pesos 1,200 pesos 450 pesos 500 pesos 500 pesos

500 pesos 115 pesos 300 pesos 600 pesos

800 pesos 165 pesos 300 pesos 600 pesos None

Source: Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 2015 (Department of Social Welfare and Development Note from MC 10 (DSWD, 2015): Amounts are based on the latest published rates online as of 31 December 2014

48

Annex 5. Regional Distribution of 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries (Individuals) Per Employer Type and Occupation Group NG NCR EMPLOYMENT Clerks Laborers OFWs Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Technicians Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (NCR)

LGU

6 1984

8

1996

20

Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Subtotal (Region II)

NGO

Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

19 39

11 19 2

36 2,054 2

92 288 1 9 4 452

1 38

93 340 1 9 6 2,541 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

Private 2 5 44

Unidentified

0 NGO

2 73 Unidentified

12 4 40

395 14 886 52

3 52

213

34

108 3 88

1506 LGU

53 125 2 1 7 244 Private

1

9

1

26 90

NGO

Unidentified

53 382 2 109 36 1,929 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

7 8 328

2 1

138

17 1 1 355

9

76 65

12

286

NG REGION II EMPLOYMENT Agricultural Workers Clerks Laborers

LGU

381 2 802

NG REGION I EMPLOYMENT Agricultural Workers Clerks Laborers OFWs Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Technicians Unidentified Subtotal (Region I)

12

6

NG CAR EMPLOYMENT Agricultural Workers Clerks Laborers OFWs Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Technicians Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (CAR)

Private

LGU

Private

1

1 38 44 15 1

1 NGO

7 10 469 38

99 Unidentified

120 106 2 1 753 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

53 492

3 495

5 2

21

34 41

5 14 93

53 5 515 21 0

26 51 650

21

49

NG REGION III EMPLOYMENT Laborers Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Subtotal (Region III)

LGU

Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Technicians Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (Region V)

134 134

Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Technicians Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (Region VI)

0

0 NGO

0 Private

0 NGO

1 3 63 67

893 LGU

195 27 983

Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

26

0 NGO

4

27 2 6 65 997 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries 2,260 142 2,595 54

2 11 Unidentified

2057 53 1455

3 19

795 8 12 143

468 5156 89 43 186

1431

1185

9507

LGU

Private 9 61

1230

28

12 6 1252

3 18 119 LGU

1 0 NGO

11 205

56 Unidentified

1

328 161 1 22 19 747 Private

468 6,156 97 58 349

1

3

4

134 134 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries 3 894

54

204

1 10 88 TOTAL 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

3 2

3

Private

8 62 157

0 Unidentified

23 1

0 Unidentified

892

NG REGION VII EMPLOYMENT

Private

LGU

NG REGION VI EMPLOYMENT Clerks Laborers OFWs

1 2 3

0 LGU

NG REGION V EMPLOYMENT Agricultural workers Clerks Laborers OFWs

Unidentified

77

8 85

NG REGION IV-B EMPLOYMENT Clerks Laborers Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (Region IV-B)

NGO

77

NG REGION IV-A EMPLOYMENT Laborers Subtotal (Region IV-A)

Private

NGO

6

3

7

1 7 Unidentified

12,179 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries 21 1,496 3 328 202 1 37 44 2,132 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

50

Agricultural Workers Clerks Laborers OFWs Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Technicians Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (Region VII)

857

2 5

2

10

569 1428 NG

REGION VIII Agricultural Workers Clerks Laborers Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (Region VIII)

LGU

Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service workers Technicians Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (Region IX)

12 26

7 286

82 231 89 1347

47 1 44 130

18 52 5 2 370

LGU

19 32 310

152 56 31 600 NG

REGION X EMPLOYMENT Agricultural Workers Clerks Laborers OFWs Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service Workers Technicians Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (Region X)

Private

25 212 236

456 69 904

12 659 3 2 348 1497

168 2228 36 7 101 3969

LGU

22 10 518

Private

23 247

1

1 20

1

1 5 63

NGO

Unidentified

16

NGO

14 1 78 NGO

2 8 121

1 2 Unidentified

1 62

176 21 1,096

1

17

2 35

49 204 4 572 22 1,834 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

35 181 237 138 1,884 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

107 29 617 154

607 343 2,129 154

46 1337 14 5 281 2590

226 4,390 53 71 761 8,734 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

Unidentified

24 41 894 41

8 41

2 41 62 64 719 NG

REGION XI EMPLOYMENT

308 Private

11 8 957 7

29 7

48 171 4 2

176 2 767

NG REGION IX EMPLOYMENT Agricultural workers Clerks Laborers OFWs

17 34

11 6 66

64 1

120 304 32

46 381

10 597

4 19

LGU

Private

31 NGO

41 Unidentified

122 413 33 81 120 1,769 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

51

Agricultural Workers Clerks Laborers Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service workers Technicians Other Occupations Unidentified Subtotal (Region XI)

132 42 998

46 3 831 10 1

1

18

4 2

909

8

550

73 577

103 9

63

1 36

8 67

247 275 3 16 19

699

788

1732

NG

LGU

Private

NGO

178 119 2,956

1

360 349 3 29 142 4,136 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

Unidentified

REGION XII EMPLOYMENT Agricultural Workers

194

Clerks Laborers

1096

59

253

1

1

2

1

151

13

OFWs

1,261 7

Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers

11

Service Workers

22

Technicians

12

15

107

156

1

7 133

16

207

1

Unidentified

1

11

Subtotal (Region XII)

11

1335 NG

14 LGU

382 Private

121 NGO

23

1,875 Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries

Unidentified

CARAGA EMPLOYMENT Agricultural workers Clerks Laborers Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers Service workers Technicians Other occupations Unidentified Subtotal (CARAGA)

5 5 149 20 18 2 7 206

9

69

3

86

41 104

22 228

24

4 1

72 506

356 3 6 132 642

46 238 4 7 76 630

1

30 61

94

10 1 110

96 674 7 25 216 1,682

GRAND TOTAL (PHILIPPINES) 14,481 5,018 19,346 1,278 3,194 Source: Basic data from the Sustainable Livelihood Program - National Project Management Office *The monitoring data was forwarded to the research team on August 2015. It is partial/incomplete as DSWD is currently reconstructing their 2011-2015 database. *The count is based on the individual beneficiary level and not at the family level. *Negros Occidental included in Region VI; Negros Oriental included in Region VII *No ARMM outputs based on the database provided

52

43,317

Annex 6. Best EF Models Region

NCR

Name of Employment Facilitation Project

Parola Solid Waste Management Project (City of Manila)

I

Partnership with Easy Life Manpower Services (Calasiao, Pangasinan)

IV-A

Pagpapahinga sa Dagat sa Look ng Balayan

Type of Partnership

LGU initiated nonformalized Partnership with Employer (Private)

Partnership with Private Manpower Service Provider

IV-B

(Agutaya, Palawan)

Better Employment through Skills Training (BEST) VI (Murcia/Himamaylan City/Ilog, Negros Occidental)

The International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) tap the SLP beneficiaries in Parola Compound in Tondo, Manila to become eco-patrollers. Their work is to ensure the cleanliness of specific areas in the compound. They receive a monthly allowance of PhP 2,000, incentives for their good performance, and a chance to make SSS contributions through the AlkanSSSya Program. They also receive various trainings on livelihood opportunities through waste management and segregation. The DSWD Field Office I forged a partnership with Easy Life Manpower Services to allow qualified program participants to be tapped for available job opportunities.

NGA Partnership for Direct Employment

A temporary fishing ban implemented in Balayan Bay, affected the livelihood of the fishermen in the area. In order to sustain their income, SLP provided them with short-term employment opportunities, through Cash for Building Livelihood Assets (CBLA). Their work is to maintain and rehabilitate certain areas in the municipalities.

Partnership with Training Institution (TechnicalVocational)

The SLP partnered with VRV Security Training Institute to assist the employable participants in the area. Skills Training on security services were given to 72 program participants. 37 participants who finished the course and secured licenses, were immediately deployed in Metro Manila, Puerto Princesa City and El Nido to work as security guards. Others are still completing their requirements for employment.

Partnership with Training Institution (Academic –based training institution)

The Better Employment Through Skills Training Project (BEST) of Field Office VI was able to assist program participants from three towns of Negros Occidental. Through a Memorandum Agreement between the DSWD and VMA Global College, 75 program participants were

(Batangas Province)

Pre-Licensing Traning Course (PLTC) for Security Guards

Description

53

able to undergo skills trainings on Household Services and Finishing Course for Call Center Agents. 54 trainees were assisted by the school to get employed in various companies, which now earn salaries ranging from P 8,000-P10,000 per month.

VII

Skills Training on Housekeeping NC II (Consolacion, Cebu)

IX

Guaranteed Employment at Century Pacifi Food, Inc. (Talisayan, Zamboanga City)

Medina Massage: “Feel the Touch, Be Relaxed” X (Medina, Misamis Oriental)

Skills Training on Security Services NC II XII (Bagumbayan, Sultan Kudarat)

Caraga

Livelihood and Employment Assistance Forum (LEAF)

Partnership with Training Institution (TechnicalVocational)

Non-formalized Partnership with Employer (Private)

NGA Partnership for Direct Employment and Partnership with Training Institution (TechnicalVocational)

Partnership with Private Manpower Service Provider

Partnership with DOLE

Primary Structures Educational Foundation, Inc. (PSEFI), is one of the partners in providing trainings for the SLP beneficiaries in Region VII (Cebu, Bohol and Negros Oriental). One of the courses offered to the beneficiaries is in Housekeeping. They were able to assist the beneficiaries in getting employment in their sister companies and other companies in the region. The Century Pacific Inc. in Zamboanga City provided seasonal employment to over 200 Pantawid Pamilya members and several Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). They are engaged in work such as fish beheading, fish cleaning, lining, and canning. The PDOs has a collaboration with worker’s cooperative, which is in charge of the initial screening of recruitment. A partnership among DSWD, LGU of Medina, Skills Mastery Institute (SMI) and Duka Bay Resort provided employment opportunities to the beneficiaries of the municipality. 29 program participants who were able to undergo skills training on massage therapy through SMI, were hired by the Duka Bay Resort. The participants, usually housewives and PWDs, earn PhP 600.00 per week. Skills Trainings on Security Services were provided to the out-of-school and unemployed in the province of Sultan Kudarat. Priority Security Agency is one of the companies that hire SLP beneficiaries. The security guards in the agency earn a net income of PhP 8,600 with basic compensation packages such as Philhealth, and SSS. The Field Office in partnership with DOLE Caraga implemented the Livelihood and Employment Assistance Forum (LEAF). The

54

RPMO provides the profiles of the program participants to DOLE for possible matching to local and international employment opportunities. Prior to the LEAF, a Pre-Employment Orientation Seminar (PEOS) is conducted to the participants. During the LEAF, they are also assisted in processing the preemployment documents, updating and enrollment to SSS and Philhealth, online application of NBI clearance, registration for TESDA Free Assessment and free ID picture. Reference: Bangon Kabuhayan 2015: sama-sama sa landas ng pag-unlad (pamphlet provided at the event)

55