2018年-世界发展银行全球_The_Philippines_Sustainable_Livelihood_Program___Providing_and_Expanding_Access_to_Employment_and_Livelihood_Opportunities_16页_772kb

Summary of the Philippines Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP)

Core Content

The Philippines Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP), initiated by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in 2011, is a social protection initiative aimed at reducing poverty and inequality by expanding access to employment and livelihood opportunities. It is aligned with the 2017-2022 Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and supports both self-employment (MD track) and wage employment (EF track) through various modalities and partnerships.

The SLP operates through a community-driven enterprise development approach, emphasizing resource-based and market-driven strategies. It is designed to help Pantawid Pamilya (Conditional Cash Transfer) beneficiaries and other vulnerable groups build sustainable livelihoods through skills training, financial support, and job placement.

Main Objectives

• Short-term: Increase wage and self-employment among participants.
• Long-term: Improve socio-economic wellbeing by fostering productive assets and income generation.

Key Program Tracks and Modalities

Micro-Enterprise Development (MD Track)

• Objective: Support participants in establishing or expanding micro-enterprises.
• Modalities:
  • Skills Training Fund: Provides training, basic living allowance, and materials. Maximum: Php 15,000 per participant.
  • Seed Capital Fund (SCF): Offers working capital for start-up and expansion. Maximum: Php 15,000 per participant.
  • Cash for Building Livelihood Assets (CBLA): Funds 11 days of labor at 75% of the regional minimum wage for asset-building projects.

Employment Facilitation (EF Track)

• Objective: Connect participants with locally available jobs through public-private partnerships.
• Modalities:
  • Skills Training Fund: Same as in MD track.
  • Employment Assistance Fund: Covers legal documents, licenses, and allowances for the first 15 days of employment. Maximum: Php 5,000 per participant.
  • Direct Referral: Participants are directly referred to employers. Percentage: 21% of EF participants.

Program Implementation Architecture

• The National Program Management Office (NPMO) oversees the program, working with 18 Regional Program Management Offices (RPMOs) and Project Development Officers (PDOs) at the local level.
• SLP Associations (SLPAs) are formed by 5–30 individuals to coordinate and implement projects, though individual participation is also allowed.
• Targeting Process involves three stages:
  1. Geographical targeting using a barangay targeting matrix.
  2. Household targeting via the Listahanan registry and proxy means test.
  3. Individual targeting through case folder reviews and SWDI assessments.

Program Expenditure and Coverage

• Budget increased from Php 84 million (2011) to Php 9.1 billion (2017), but disbursements declined in recent years.
• Coverage expanded from 46,000 families (2011) to 340,000 (2015), and 166,000 (2017), though 2017 numbers dropped significantly to 36% of 2015 levels.
• Cost per beneficiary rose due to increased program obligations and reduced coverage.

Implementation Phases

1. Targeting and Identification: Takes 2–3 months, including community assemblies and PSLA (Participatory Sustainable Livelihood Analysis).
2. Project Proposal Development: Takes 1 month, involving feasibility assessments and proposal submission.
3. Project Review and Approval: No fixed timeline, with provincial and regional reviews.
4. Project Operationalization: Begins with training and financial support.
5. Project Monitoring: Conducted quarterly, with PDOs responsible for tracking progress and ensuring sustainability.

Program Monitoring and Evaluation

• The program currently monitors grant usage and project outputs.
• Monitoring is often done on a case-by-case basis due to high workloads.
• Evaluation is based on participation rates, employment duration, and income improvements.

Challenges and Opportunities

• Challenges:
  • Inaccurate determination of MD to EF participant ratios.
  • Limited data on modality overlaps and their impact on success.
  • High program costs due to reduced beneficiary numbers and increased obligations.
• Opportunities:
  • Integration with other social protection programs to enhance welfare outcomes.
  • Strengthening partnerships with NGOs, local governments, and vocational institutions.
  • Complementary use of modalities to maximize benefits for participants.

Recommendations

• Improve data collection on modality usage and overlaps.
• Enhance program efficiency by better aligning targets with local opportunities.
• Strengthen monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure transparency and accountability.
• Continue integration with other SP programs to create synergies and expand impact.

Conclusion

The SLP represents a significant effort by the DSWD to promote sustainable livelihoods and reduce poverty through income-generating activities and employment facilitation. While it has achieved notable success in expanding access to financial and training resources, there are opportunities to refine its targeting, improve monitoring, and enhance integration with other social protection programs to increase effectiveness and long-term impact.