15 Achievement of Social Development Results-based Outcomes (Selected Indicators

Elementary Secondary Cohort survival rate increased (in %) Elementary Secondary Achievement rate increased (in %) Elementary 72.1 83.0 82.65 (2015) + 75.1 80.0 75 (2013) +

74.2 83.0 84.75 (2015) + 79.4 85.0

x

68.2 77.0 70 (2013) + Secondary 47.9 65.0 54 (2013) + Certification rate in TVET increased (in %) 82.9 87.5 91.1 (2014) + TVET graduates increased (annual) 1,344,371 1,383,026 1,765,757 + Higher education graduates increased 498,418 601,505 692,602 (2016) + Higher education faculty with MA increased (in %) 38.87 65 40.34 (2016)

Higher education faculty with PhD increased (in %) 11.09 30 12.62 (2016)

HEIs with accredited programs increased (in %) 19.89 35 26.63 (2016)

National passing percentage (across disciplines) in licensure exams increased (in %) 33.91 52.53 39.29 (2015)

Sector Outcome: 6b: Vulnerabilities Reduced Subsector outcome 6c: Social protection expanded Proportion of poor families covered by PhilHealth as identified under the NHTSPR and LGU, Sponsored Program(%) 88.7 100 92

6d: Access to secure shelter expanded Percentage of housing targets met (%) 22.5 25.84 60.65

Share of socialized housing to housing target improved (%) 56.78 77.77

x

Legend

+ With 50%+ of Target Achievement Rate; Fair to Good x No values reported - Less than 50% Rating; Medium to Poor

Figure III.15 Achievement of Social Development Results-based Outcomes (Selected Indicators)

This section presents discussion and assessments from government agencies involved in the implementation of key programs related to human development (HD) and poverty reduction (PR) and social development in general (based on the development framework adopted by the cluster on HD and PR) as well as alternative assessments presented during an NCPAG-organized UP Public Lecture Series held last April 2016 to assess the PNoy administration’s performance, along with assessments from the study team.

According to former President Aquino, “the government’s effort to put primacy in social services contributed to the decrease in poverty incidence from 27.9% in the first semester of 2012 to 25.8% in the first semester of 2014. This is equivalent to around 504,408 individuals getting out of poverty” (Aquino, 2015). This figure further decreased to 21.6% in 2016.

1. Overall Focus on Poverty Alleviation Efforts

PNoy mentioned in his SONA Technical Report for 2015 that by “focusing on improving the overall quality of life of the Filipino, the government translated the gains of economic growth into direct, immediate, and substantial benefits” (Office of the President, 2015, p.43).

One of the major achievements for this cluster that was mentioned in the technical report is the increase in employment. It was also reported that these improvements in employment were complemented by the government’s efforts toward social development that reportedly enabled the poor to take advantage of economic opportunities as well as social protection programs that will prevent them from falling deeper into poverty. These programs reportedly included efforts to capacitate the workforce of the poor towards decent and productive work; promote access to affordable and quality health care; and empower the poor and marginalized to enhance their access to basic needs and opportunities, as stipulated in the expected results outcomes for this cluster.

The priority accorded by the government on the welfare of the poor and the marginalized is seen in its consistent allotment of the biggest share of the national budget every year to social services, increasing its allocation more than twofold from 2010 to 2015. Figure III.16 below shows this sustained increase in the social services budget.

However, during the UP Public Lectures held in April 2016, alternative assessors lament the still high poverty incidence (around one-fifth of the population) especially when compared with the statistics of the neighboring countries in the Southeast Asia. Professors Marivic Raquiza and Rosalinda Ofreneo both point to jobless growth as the reason the poverty incidence in country remains high. Both academics also criticized on the DSWD flagship program Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), particularly the inclusion and exclusion errors, and the conditionalities that come with the cash transfers. Profs. Ofreneo and Raquiza both stated that interventions such as 4Ps do not necessarily address the root cause of poverty. They both noted the shrinking industrial and agricultural sectors, which are both laborintensive sectors. Both concluded that structural transformation is needed to truly address poverty.

While acknowledging that the 4Ps may have had achieved some positive effects, i.e., positive behavioral changes on the beneficiaries and incremental improvements in health and education effort, Prof. Marivic Raquiza also argued that no overall impact on poverty reduction was achieved among the household beneficiaries. Raquiza cautioned against such gains and pointed out that allthough the PNoy presidency had the highest expenditure for anti-poverty programs among all presidencies since Cory Aquino’s time, it should be noted that such programs were characterized by loans. By 2016, the World Bank (WB) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) had provided a total of US$805 million in loans with US$1M technical assistance from ADB to support the 4Ps. This means that the government needs to repay in loans what it spent for the 4Ps.