1. Evaluation of the Sustainable Livelihood Program (Phase II): Employment Facilitation Track
Dr. Marife Ballesteros
Tatum Ramos
Jasmine Magtibay
Dr. Aniceto Orbeta
Kathrina Gonzales
Gerald Daval-Santos
Ann Jillian Adona
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas

2. What is SLP?
program that provides identified poor families the appropriate income-generating opportunities through microenterprise or employment to help improve their level of economic sufficiency
Sustainable Livelihood Program
Microenterprise Development Track
Employment Facilitation Track

3. The Graduation Model: SLP Program
Targeting
0 months
12 months
Onwards
Skills training
Resource Mobilization
Monitoring and Approval
Survival
Subsistence
Self-Sufficient
Social Preparation
Access to Credit/
Improved employability
Market analysis/
partnership building
Regular Coaching
Self-sufficient livelihood/ gainful jobs
6 months
18 months
YEAR 0
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
Note: Authors’ demonstration of SLP adaptation of CGAP/IPA Graduation Model

4. SLP Results Chain

5. Methodology
Desk Review: SLP Operation Manual, SLP Performance Reports, Related Literature
Secondary Data Analysis: SLP Database; Other Monitoring Reports
Field Visits in Marikina City in NCR and in the provinces of Pangasinan, Masbate, Cebu, Compostela Valley, and Davao City;
Basis for Selection: Number of EF Beneficiaries and presence of various type of employers (NGAs, LGUs, NGOs, and the private sector; overseas); Source: SLP NPMO Database as of June 2015
Conducted Focus Group Discussions with Beneficiaries
Interviewed Provincial Coordinators, SLP PDOs, SLP Employers, PESO Managers, Representatives from Training Schools and Manpower Service Providers

6. I. Flowchart Area and Participant Identification
Intervention Identification Decision Tree (FOM)
Intervention Identification Decision Tree (Based on Field Work)

7. Criteria for Targeting
Field Operations Manual
Based on Field Work
I. Area identification
Areas with more priority families (SWDI level 2 or 3; subsistence or self-sufficiency) are preferred
Capacities or resources of possible participants in the area
Existing opportunities 
* Number of 4Ps beneficiaries in the area/
areas with households under the survival category (SWDI level 1) not excluded
II. Participant identification
Capability and willingness to be employed or retain his employment (18 years old and above); capability and willingness to participate in a group enterprise or manage his own enterprise (16 years old and above)
4Ps families
Non-4Ps families identified as poor based on Listahanan
Families not in the Listahanan but with a certificate of indigence issued by the C/MSWDO
Vulnerable groups (PWDs, elderly, etc.)
Work experience
PDO assessment of household functionality: utilization of internal and external resources (e.g. performance in CCT; participation/support to SLP activities)

8. I. Flowchart Area and Participant Identification
Intervention Identification Decision Tree (FOM)
Intervention Identification Decision Tree (Based on Field Work)

9. II. Identification of EF Intervention
Info on skills profile of potential 4Ps beneficiaries could be available already at the area, participant, and project identification; using the profile, SLP PDOs could initially identify the track/ project/interventions to be given to the beneficiaries  info on skills profile is validated during orientation (FDS)
Readiness of the participant to employment
Participants ready for employment  Assist them in job application (e.g. job matching, job fairs) and/or directly refer them to employers (direct employment)
Participants not yet ready for employment  Facilitate other interventions

10. EF Track Interventions
Pre-employment counselling = orientation on work ethics , employment document preparation
Skills Training
Basic Employment Skills Training (BEST) facilitated by SLP PDOs
Skills training offered by technical-vocational institutions (Memorandum of Agreement with DSWD) (~2 weeks to almost 2 months)
Maximum of Php 20, Skills Training Fund: Tuition fee/professional fees, materials and supplies, starter kits, transportation allowance, assessment fee, food and accommodation
Job Matching/Referral
Direct referral (direct jobs or service provider e.g. PESO)
Referral upon completion of skills training (by SLP office or by manpower service provider)
Pre-employment Assistance Fund (PEAF)
Financial assistance for the preparation of pre-employment requirements <transportation and securing documents: birth certificate, passport, school diploma, medical or physical examination, TIN, barangay and NBI clearances>
Maximum of Php 5, provided that the participant has a guaranteed employer offering a mimimum of three months of employment

11. EF Track Interventions
Cash for Building Livelihood Assets (CBLA)
Immediate cash and productive short-term employment to one member of the 4Ps household
Implemented in areas where:
Natural resources are abundant
There are available market opportunities to buy the products
There is a strong LGU support
Poor families are willing to cooperate in the project
Work usually not exceeding 11 days
Maximum allowance to each worker: 75% of the prevailing minimum wage per location of the project

12. III: Developing EF partnerships
Main Strategies
Initiated by the central office
(e.g. DPWH, DAR. DA)
Initiated by Provincial/Municipal SLP PDOs through orientations/one-to-one correspondence (e.g PESO, manpower service providers, tech-voc institutions)
Initiated by the private sector

13. Types of EF Partnerships
Direct Employment of Beneficiaries
Employment Facilitation
SLP PARTNERSHIPS
Employment-Directed Training
Training
Informal partnership

14. Direct Employment of Beneficiaries
Major NGA employment partners for the SLP: DPWH, DENR, DA DOT
The DPWH allots 40% of the workers requirement to the 4Ps beneficiaries. The DSWD would endorse selected beneficiaries to the DPWH; the latter would no longer conduct further screening since the jobs provided does not require specific skills.
Some beneficiaries get absorbed by the DPWH but DSWD practices 6 month jobs to give chances to others
SLP beneficiaries hired through the Trabahong Lansangan Program have a daily wage of ₱409.09; stay only in the municipality where they reside.
Many of those employed are retirees; youth are usually embarrassed to take on jobs of street sweepers
DENR: National Greening Program (NGP); Grow a Million Trees Project
DOT: One-Step Project; Road-Enhancing Softscapes for Tourism Project
DA: Cash for Building Livelihood Assets
Employment Facilitation (PESO and Private Manpower Service Providers)
Public Employment Service Office (PESO): employment facilitation service under the office of the governor with technical supervision of DOLE
The private manpower service providers who were asked charge their fees to their client-employers and not to the DSWD nor to the beneficiaries. The fees they charge to 4Ps beneficiaries, if any, are only for miscellaneous expenses
Occupation of beneficiaries linked by manpower service providers: gasoline attendant, waiter, factory worker, promodizer, frontliners, cashiers

15. Employment-Directed Training
TESDA-accredited training institutions (academic and non-academic)
trainings: cookery, baking, food and beverage, housekeeping, welding, computer, on housekeeping, cookery, bartending, masonry, carpentry, call center, security services, automotive, driving, computer hardware services, and cookery
Training
TESDA: Cash for Training Project
DA: agricultural technical assistance and training programs to beneficiaries
DOST and DAR: technical assistance mainly in values and skills training
Informal partnerships = direct referral to households, LGUs or other private companies

16. Public Employment Service Office (PESO)
Employment service facilities under the office of the governor, city, or municipal mayor
Under the technical supervision of the DOLE
Functions (RA No )
encourage the submission of list of job vacancies
develop and administer testing and evaluation instruments for effective job selection, training and counselling
provide persons with entrepreneurship qualities, access to the various livelihood and self-employment programs…
undertake employability enhancement trainings or seminars…;
provide employment or occupational counselling, career guidance, mass motivation and values development activities;
conduct pre-employment counselling and orientation to prospective local and, most especially, overseas workers;
provide reintegration assistance services to returning Filipino migrant workers;
prepare and submit to the local sanggunian an annual employment plan and budget including other regular funding sources and budgetary support of the PESO;

17. DSWD Partnership with PESOs
Process
MOU with PESO field office
MOA with LGUs to which the PESOs are connected
In other areas no functioning PESO partnership (e,g, Marikina , Masbate)
Activities:
Skills Registry System (SRS)
Job fairs
Career coaching
Values formation sessions

18. Case study: Functioning PESO
AREA
PRACTICE of PESO
Pangasinan
PESO-Lingayen links the SLP beneficiaries 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.
Beneficiaries are also being linked to jobs in housekeeping, electrical, and construction industry.
During Job Fairs, they provide a separate registration area for 4Ps beneficiaries
Cebu
PESO-Mandaue links the SLP beneficiaries to one of the biggest leading manufacturers such as Cebu Mitsumi, Inc. which provides training in producing quality electronic parts.
They keep proper documentation of the profile of the 4Ps beneficiaries

19. SLP Intermediate Outcomes: Families served
Percentage of 4Ps Families Served Through the SLP as of December 2015
Region
4Ps Families as of August 25, 2015
% of 4Ps Families Served Through the SLP*
NCR
231,479
15%
CAR
63,123
35% I
201,946
21% II
101,921
27%
III
288,780
IV-A
317,242 6%
IV-B
196,203
24% V
373,669
28% VI
320,284
VII
280,738
16%
VIII
284,610 IX
313,454
38% X
271,239
43% XI
259,116
19%
XII
236,165
CARAGA
183,691
52%
ARMM
429,937 2%
TOTAL
4,353,597
22%
Source: Basic data from the Department of Social Welfare and Development
Note. *Number of 4Ps families is as of August 25, Number of SLP Families is from January 2011 to December 2015.

20. SLP Intermediate Outcomes Per Track
SLP Outputs Per Track from January 2011 to December 2015
Region
CY 2011 to 2015 Physical Target
Micro-enterprise Development (MD)
Employment Facilitation (EF)
Grand Total
4Ps
Non-4Ps
MD 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
VII
60,833
39,075
12,681
51,756
5,551
57,307
44,626
73%
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 -
19%
TOTAL
970,914
830,638
143,330
973,968
133,340
1,107,308
963,978
99%
Source: Table from the Sustainable Livelihood Program – National Project Management Office (with heading changes: Pantawid, Pantawid Pamilya to 4Ps; % to % to Physical Target)
Note. Data Reconciliation as of January 15, 2016
133,340 families served through the EF Track as of December 2015
Regions VI and VIII have the highest number of served EF Track families with 26,308 and 23,456 families served, respectively
4Ps served: 99% accomplishment of physical target
Over 100%: Regions I, II, III, V, VI, IX, X, XI, XII, CARAGA, NCR
Below 50%: Regions IV-A and ARMM
Note: A served family could have gone through either or both tracks

21. Partnerships Developed by Type
Partnership Intervention Types
REGIONS
Training
Employment
Market Linking
Financial Services
Non-Financial Assets
Networking
Other Interventions
NCR 31 33 6 3 - 1
CAR 13 17 16 10 5 I 34 42 22 II 8 2
III 21 7
IV-A 11
IV-B 55 12 9 V 18 44 50 19 VI 30
VII
VIII 14 4 IX 28 25 X XI 37
XII
CARAGA
111 26
ARMM
Grand Total
449
275 43
154 88
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.

22. Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries Grand Total (Philippines
Type of Employment
Employers of 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries
Region NG
LGU
Private
NGO
Unidentified
Total 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries
NCR
1996 20
452 73
2541
CAR
1506 88
244 1 90
1929 I
355 12
286 99
753 II
495 41 93 21
650
III 85 3
IV-A
134
IV-B
893 67 26 11
997 V
1431
1185
9507 56
12179 VI
1252
119
747 7
2132
VII
1428 34
308 63
1834
VIII
1347
130
370 35 2
1884 IX
600
1497
3969 78
2590
8734 X
719
381
597 31
1769 XI
699
788
1732
909 8
4136
XII
1335 14
263
121
142
1875
CARAGA
206
642
630 94
110
1682
ARMM
Grand Total (Philippines
14,481
5,018
19,227
1,278
3,313
43,317
Source: Basic data from the Sustainable Livelihood Program - National Project Management Office
*The data coverage is as of June 2015 but is partial/incomplete as DSWD is currently reconstructing their database. Removed items with self-employed tags in the database. Total number of beneficiaries left is 43,317.
*Unidentified employers have been tagged as such because of vague inputs in the database. Total number is 3,313.
*Negros Occidental included in Region VI; Negros Oriental included in Region VII
*No ARMM outputs based on the database provided
Among the employer groups, the private sector has employed the most number of beneficiaries from 4Ps households (19,227 or 44.4%)
Second to the highest is the national government with 14,481 (33.4%) beneficiaries

23. Type of Work
Employment of 4Ps-EF Track Beneficiaries
Region
Agricultural Workers
Clerks
Laborers
Overseas
Plant and Machine Operators/ Factory Workers
Service Workers
Technicians
Other Occupations
Unidentified
Total 4P-EF Track Beneficiaries
NCR 36
2054 2 93
340 1 9 6
2541
CAR
395 14
886 52 53
382
109
1929 I 7 10
469 38
120
106
753 II 5
515 26 51
650
III 77 88
IV-A
134
IV-B 3
894 27 65
997 V
2260
142
2595 54
468
6156 97 58
349
12179 VI 21
1496
328
202 37 44
2132
VII 11 8
957 49
204 4
572 22
1834
VIII
176
1096 35
181
237
138
1884 IX
607
343
2129
154
226
4390 71
761
8734 X 24 41
122
413 33 81
1769 XI
178
119
2956
360 29
4136
XII
253
1261
133
207
1875
CARAGA 86 72
506 96
674 25
216
1682
ARMM
Grand Total (Philippines)
4,050
837
18,919
358
2,137
13,667
1,234
1,911
43,317
Source: Basic data from the Sustainable Livelihood Program - National Project Management Office
*The data coverage is as of June 2015 but is partial/incomplete as DSWD is currently reconstructing their database. Removed items with self-employed tags in the database. Total number of beneficiaries left is 43,317.
*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.” Those under the National Greening Program’s Cash for Work scheme are under “Other Occupations.”
*For validation with the DSWD: why there are self-employed EF Track beneficiaries
*Negros Occidental included in Region VI; Negros Oriental included in Region VII
*No ARMM outputs based on the database provided
Most of the beneficiaries are laborers (18,919 or %) and service workers (13,667 or %)

24. PEAF Utilization
Number of Families Served Through PEAF as of November 25, 2015
Region
Families served through PEAF
Families served through the EF Track from January to November 25, 2015 %
NCR
297
1,632
18.2%
CAR 69
800
8.6% I
239
928
25.8% II -
200
0.0%
III
IV-A 31
100.0%
IV-B
546
408
133.8% V
2,084
4,917
42.4% VI
885
1,313
67.4%
VII 36
1,875
1.9%
VIII 24
14,338
0.2% IX
1,778 X 1
1,934
0.1% XI
2,281
2,286
99.8%
XII
107
788
13.6%
CARAGA 37
516
7.2%
ARMM
TOTAL
6,637
33,744
19.7%
Source: Basic data of number of families from the Sustainable Livelihood Program - National Project Management Office
6,637 families had been provided with PEAF as of November 25, since the implementation of PEAF in 2015
Regions with the highest number of served families: Regions XI (2,281) and V (2,084)
No family has been served yet in Regions II, III, IX, and ARMM as of November 25, 2015

25. Name of Employment Facilitation Project
Best EF Models
Region
Name of Employment Facilitation Project
Type of Partnership
NCR (City of Manila)
Parola Solid Waste Management Project
LGU initiated non-formalized Partnership with Employer (Private)
I (Calasiao, Pangasinan)
Partnership with Easy Life Manpower Services
Partnership with Private Manpower Service Provider
IV-A (Batangas Province)
Pagpapahinga sa Dagat sa Look ng Balayan
NGA Partnership for Direct Employment
IV-B (Agutaya, Palawan)
Pre-Licensing Traning Course (PLTC) for Security Guards
Partnership with Training Institution (Technical-Vocational)
VI (Murcia/Himamaylan City/Ilog, Negros Occidental)
Better Employment through Skills Training (BEST)
Partnership with Training Institution (Academic –based training institution)
VII (Consolacion, Cebu)
Skills Training on Housekeeping NC II
IX (Talisayan, Zamboanga City)
Guaranteed Employment at Century Pacifi Food, Inc.
Non-formalized Partnership with Employer (Private)
X (Medina, Misamis Oriental)
Medina Massage: “Feel the Touch, Be Relaxed”
NGA Partnership for Direct Employment and Partnership with Training Institution (Technical-Vocational)
XII (Bagumbayan, Sultan Kudarat)
Skills Training on Security Services NC II
Caraga
Livelihood and Employment Assistance Forum (LEAF)
Partnership with DOLE
First place: Better Employment through Skills Training (BEST) (Region VI)
MOA between DSWD and VMA Global College
75 program participants were 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 (now earning Php 8,000 to Php 10,000 per month)
Second Place: Medina Massage: “Feel the Touch, Be Relaxed” (Region X)
Partnership among DSWD, LGU of Medina, Skills Mastery Institute (SMI), and Duka Bay Resort
29 participants, who were albe to undergo skills training on massage therapy through SMI, were hired by the Duka Bay Resort
Earning Php 600 per week +
Third Place: Pre-Licensing Training Course for Secuirty Guards (Region IV-B)
Partnership with VRV Security Training Institute
Skills training on security services 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
Reference: 2015 Bangon Kabuhayan pamphlet provided at the event

26. Implementation Issues (1)
Design Issues
Program Effect
Budget parameter not equal to cost parameter for skills training
Quality of training would be affected; access to high skilled training could be limited
Household members present during the orientation sometimes sign up the other members (e.g. children) who do not have the desire to work yet or do not like the job they were signed up for
Displaced other potential beneficiaries; delay employment (e.g. DPWH)
PEAF becoming a reimbursement scheme
Delay employment; loss of employment opportunity
SLP PDOs dependent on the schedule of Family Development Sessions to conduct SLP orientation
Slowdown SLP implementation; tendency of PDOs to fast track outputs by offering MD track

27. Implementation Issues (2)
Organizational Issues
Program Effect
Weak coordination among DSWD field offices in some regions/provinces
Employment opportunities limited if jobs market is confined to city/municipality
PDOs are handling too many tasks.
Current case load: 1 PDO to 800 beneficiaries
Proposed case load: 1 PDO to 229 beneficiaries
Quality of coaching, market analysis, partnership development is reduced
Incentive problem: PDOs performance evaluated based on employed beneficiaries while efforts on other EF interventions minimized
PDOs have no control on employment; tendency to direct participant to MD

28. Implementation Issues (3)
Partnership Issue
Program Effect
Local politics may affect functionality of PESO
Weaken functionality of PESO
PESO and other manpower services do not give priority to Pantawid
Competition with non-Pantawid can displaced Pantawid beneficiaries
PESO is confined to city/municipal level or low-income provinces
Delays in payment of skills training to partners
Discourage partnerships with private sector
Contextual Issue
Program Effect
Lack of suitable jobs in the locality
Difficulty to establish partnerships; Preference for MD
Distant jobs imply relocation
Adverse social impact

29. Implementation (4) Qualification Issue Program Effect
Participants do not meeting the minimum educational attainment and not within the age limit required by employers
Poor work ethics/attitude of beneficiaries = difficulty in adapting to the work environment, no interest in work, and/or complain about the distance of the workplace to their home
Require interventions other than skills training (e.g. personality/character development)
Poor personality/physical attributes– lack of confidence or interpersonal aptitude; height, overall appearance, dentures
Limited employment opportunities

30. Monitoring Issues
There is no formal mechanism in monitoring the status of beneficiaries
Monitoring is at the initiative of the PDOs
Some technical-vocational institutions prepare reports on the performance of beneficiaries during trainings; other partners give updates on the employment of the beneficiaries
Some beneficiaries update the PDOs
SLP outputs not yet linked to SWDI
Implications:
Available data could be understating the EF Track output
Other issues not being addressed (e.g. quality of jobs, work environment, wages/salaries not being captured, etc.)
Monitoring outputs at the family level and not at the beneficiary level
Not taking into account multiple interventions being provided per family
Already being addressed by the DSWD (currently reconstructing database)

31. Conclusions
The participants choice of intervention (Microenterprise vs Employment) have been influenced by factors other than their characteristics (skills, interest, experience, etc).
Weaknesses in program design, incentive problem, funding issues, weak partnerships, etc. distort beneficiary sorting and choices that constrain the program to achieve expected outcomes
Areas to improve on:
1) need to develop a sorting mechanism that is based on participant’s characteristics
2) improve on the EF Track design to increase job opportunities
Focus on employment directed training
Focus on job search/matching assistance instead of public works (?)
Assess training cost based on quality or employment training need 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
Developed PESO partnership on regional or provincial level
Assess need for other interventions

32. [ Thank you ] Service through policy research
Philippine Institute for Development Studies Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas
[ Thank you ]
WEBSITE:
FACEBOOK: facebook.com/PIDS.PH
TWITTER: twitter.com/PIDS_PH
Service through policy research

33. Incentive Mechanisms for Partnership Formation
Actors
Decision
Incentive
National Government Agencies
(Direct Employment of Beneficiaries)
Initiate partnership by allotting labor opportunities to beneficiaries
NGAs find the partnership as an opportunity to fulfill their mandate
Manpower Agencies and PESOs
(Employment Facilitation)
Accept partnership to facilitate employment of beneficiaries
Manpower agencies and PESOs see better chances of successful employment facilitation by including the beneficiaries in their pool of laborers
Technical Vocational Institutions (Training / Employment-Directed Training)
Initiate partnership by offering training courses to beneficiaries
Private sectors face less risk of non-repayment of fees from SLP-funded beneficiaries

34. Training Costs

35. References
Brown, Alessio J.G.; Köttl, Johannes (2012): Active labor market programs employment gain or fiscal drain?, Kiel Working Paper, No
Department of Budget and Management. Accessed last January 23, 2016 on <
Replublic Act No
SLP Database (2015).
SLP Field Operations Manual (2015).
4Ps Database (2015).