SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT & EAST ASIA SOCIAL PROTECTION UNIT 90178 C A S E S T U DY June 2014 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Philippines ABSTRACT Enhancing Program Accountability by Addressing The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Complaints and Improving Implementation (Pantawid Pamilya) is the Government of Philippines’ flagship social assistance pro- 1. Introduction and Overview of Pantawid Pamilya gram. It is a conditional cash transfer (CCT) program that targets poor households The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (Pantawid Pamilya) is the Government of Phil- with children and/or pregnant women. ippines’ flagship social assistance program. It is a conditional cash transfer (CCT) program Introduced in 2007 as a pilot program for that targets poor households with children and/or pregnant women. The Pantawid 6,000 households, Pantawid Pamilya was Pamilya program has dual objectives: to provide cash grants to poor households for short-term poverty alleviation and to break intergenerational poverty through invest- rolled out nationally in 2008. Through ments in human capital. Under the program, beneficiary households receive health a series of expansions, Pantawid Pami- and education grants as long as they comply with program conditions (see annex 1). lya has now become one of the largest Depending on their composition, beneficiary households receive monthly grants rang- CCT programs in the world. The program ing from PhP 500 to PhP 1,400 (US$11–32).1 features a systematic, professional, and rules-based procedure for handling griev- Pantawid Pamilya was introduced in 2007 as a pilot program of the Department of ances and appeals. The grievance redress Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Through a series of expansions, Pantawid Pamilya has now become one of the largest CCT programs in the world. The program’s system (GRS) of Pantawid Pamilya has annual budget allocation in 2014 is PhP 62 billion (US$1.4 billion), covering nearly four made great strides and has resolved million households in all 1,627 cities and municipalities in 79 provinces in 17 regions. This nearly 500,000 grievances since its launch. represents three-fourths of the 5.2 million poor identified by the poverty targeting Well-designed structures, sound business mechanism, Listahanan. While centrally designed and led by the DSWD, the program processes and standards, and dynamic also relies heavily on interagency coordination at various national, regional, provincial, staff are some of the salient features in and municipal levels—particularly in the health and education sectors—to reach its the current GRS. This note describes the beneficiaries. Pantawid Pamilya experience in rolling out A systematic, professional, and rules-based procedure for handling grievances and a large-scale system to redress grievances. appeals was integrated into the core design of the program to minimize and man- It discusses the accountability context of age risks, but also to ensure that the program achieves its goals and meets the needs Pantawid Pamilya and the role of grievance of beneficiary households. The Pantawid Pamilya grievance redress system (GRS) was redress; outlines the institutional arrange- designed to facilitate due process in resolving the complaints and grievances of ben- ments for Pantawid Pamilya and the GRS eficiary households and citizens at large. The rapid expansion of Pantawid Pamilya in within the program; provides a summary terms of its scale and scope to meet the growing needs of poor households led to an of the GRS process and its performance; increase in queries, clarifications, and problems related to program policies and proce- elaborates on the strengths as well as areas dures. This stretched the GRS to its limit and necessitated continuous improvements. that need further strengthening in the GRS; This note is intended to share the experience of Pantawid Pamilya’s GRS and guide and finally, provides operational implica- project teams and governments in designing GRSs for similar social programs. It is divided tions for practitioners implementing similar into seven sections. Section 2 details governance and accountability mechanisms in Pan- GRSs in large-scale social programs. tawid Pamilya. Section 3 outlines the institutional arrangements for Pantawid Pamilya and the GRS within the program. Sections 4 and 5 provide a summary of the GRS process 1. All U.S. dollars noted in this report are approximate according to current exchange rates. Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines and key grievance trends. Section 6 details the initial design fea- Pantawid Pamilya has incorporated various governance and tures that have been successful as well as areas that need further accountability mechanisms in its design and implementation to strengthening as Pantawid Pamilya continues to scale up. Finally, address and mitigate these risks, including embedding control Section 7 provides policy and operational implications for task and accountability mechanics in program design (see annex 3 teams and governments implementing similar GRSs. for additional details), improving accountability and implemen- tation capacity of the implementing agency (supply side), and 2. Governance and Accountability in empowering beneficiaries and promoting community participa- Pantawid Pamilya tion (demand side). Examples of these accountability measures include the following: The administration of CCT programs is typically complex, requiring involvement from multiple sectors, such as social • The program utilizes geographic targeting based on the inci- welfare, education, and health, ranging from the national to dence of poverty to ensure better targeting. local levels. Operationally, CCT programs entail handling and • In identified areas, a supply-side assessment is conducted to processing voluminous administrative and financial transactions, ensure that health and education services are available so managing and continuously updating data on a large number of that beneficiaries can comply with program conditions. beneficiaries, carrying out beneficiary selection and registration, • Pantawid Pamilya selects beneficiaries based on an objec- monitoring compliance, and administering payments (see annex tive and transparent methodology—i.e., the proxy means 2 for the implementation cycle of Pantawid Pamilya). Given this test2—and only poor eligible households are registered to complexity, CCT programs are prone to risks of error, fraud, cor- receive program benefits. ruption, and leakages (Arulpragasam et al., 2010). Further, there • Health and school facilities regularly monitor beneficiary are several governance risks unique to the Philippines, such as compliance with program conditions. the large geographic spread and diversity and the high level 2. The proxy means test examines each household through certain variables, such as owner- of corruption and pervasive patronage politics that affect all ship of assets, type of housing, education of the head of the household, sources of livelihood national programs, especially those like Pantawid Pamilya, which for the family, and access to water and sanitation. Households are considered eligible if they are classified as poor based on Listahanan data, have children up to age 14, and/or include a aim to deliver benefits based on objective, need-based data. pregnant woman, and if they agree to meet the conditions specified in the program. In 2014, the program plans to extend the age bracket to 18. BOX 1 Principles of the Pantawid Pamilya GRS The Pantawid Pamilya GRS has two key objectives: to provide a mechanism to facilitate due process in resolving grievances and complaints related to project implementation and to refine program design and implementation by obtaining data on the vulnerabilities of the project. Thus, the GRS not only resolves grievances but also allows program management to learn from filed grievances in order to further refine program policies and improve implementation. At its foundation, the GRS has the following underlying principles: • Simplicity and accessibility. GRS procedures for filing grievances and seeking redress are simple and easy to understand; griev- ances can be submitted by the beneficiaries and the community in general through a range of means. • Transparency. The system is publicized to a broad audience—beneficiaries, citizens, CSOs, media, and government officials— at all levels—from barangay/village to the national level.   • Empowering and participatory. Communities, project implementers, and the media are encouraged to share feedback and file grievances. • Timeliness. Guidelines include timelines that ensure grievances are handled in a timely manner.  • Right of appeal. Channels for appeal are available if complainants are not satisfied with the resolution of a problem. • Confidentiality. The identity of complainants remains confidential unless otherwise requested. • Pro-community. The GRS aims to involve the community in order to address complaints. Source: DSWD 2014b. 2 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines • Payments are released directly to beneficiaries primarily via • Monitoring and evaluation is embedded in program design, cash cards or over the counter. and regular monitoring and “spot checks” by third parties are • A sophisticated management information system (MIS) conducted. handles the large volume of data generated by the program, • The DSWD implements a strategic communication cam- thereby improving the quality and integrity of program paign to empower beneficiaries and to strengthen partner- implementation. ships with various stakeholders. BOX 2 Milestones in the Development of Pantawid Pamilya’s GRS The GRS is one of the key institutional systemsa that has been incorporated in the design of Pantawid Pamilya in order to address its vulnerability to errors, fraud, and corruption. The GRS has evolved considerably since its formal launch in 2010. The Grievance Redress Division has established business processes and operational guidelines on how to handle grievances and has rolled out numerous trainings for grievance officers, city/municipal links, and parent leaders to address queries and problems at all levels. The mechanisms for filing grievances have also been diversified, now including forms, texts, phone calls, emails, and social media, and the MIS currently supports more efficient grievance management. Through these efforts, the GRS has become much more widely known. An independent spot check conducted in 2012 found that among those interviewed, 81 percent of beneficiaries, 92 percent of parent leaders, and 89 percent of municipal/local government unit links were aware of the GRS. A World Bank team conducted a rapid assessment of the GRS in 2012, confirming that the GRS is fully functional and meeting its objectives; it also provided recommendations for further improvement. This GRS continues to strive to be more effective and client-centric, par- ticularly through a review of its business processes, performance management structure, and management of customer relations. MILESTONES 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 6,000 0.3 million 1 million 2.1 million 3 million 3.9 million 4.3 million beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary households households households households households households households Pantawid Pamilya Official launch of Payments linked to Launch of Launch of the Launch of call center Further enhancement CCT program piloted Pantawid Pamilya a compliance Pantawid Text unified registry of GRS through User-friendly verification process Hotline for grievances— a review of business grievance forms Unified Customer processes, incentive Deployment of GRS; introduced development of first Relations Management structures, and use Application Development of of information GRS data entry (UNICS-CRM) “citizens’ feedback” technology for application and corner, a unified more efficient operation manual and interface web page grievance roll out of training for GRS management (under an open government initiative) Source: Authors’ compilation. a. The other key systems are the Beneficiary Data Management and Compliance Verification, and Payment Systems. The Beneficiary Data Management System seeks to validate and update the profiles of the eligibile beneficiaries for compliance monitoring. The Compliance Verification System is the mechanism used to check compliance of household beneficiaries on conditions on health, education, and attendance at family development sessions as the basis for payment of grants. Based on the results of compliance verification, cash transfers are made to beneficiary households. 3 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines FIGURE 1 (GRD).3 Ninety-seven percent of the project staff Institutional Arrangements for Pantawid Pamilya is decentralized and deployed at the regional, provincial, cluster,4 and city/municipal levels (see National Independent figure 1). Each city/municipal link covers approxi- CCT Oversight Secretariat Advisory and Monitoring mately 800 beneficiary households as a focal point of communications to beneficiaries. A group of DSWD—Lead Agency Interagency Advisory Committee 20–30 beneficiaries in the same barangay5/village National Project Management Office National Advisory Committee selects a parent leader to serve as a representative NAC Technical Working Group Grievance Redress Division National Grievance Committee to communicate with the city/municipal link and as a coordinator for the group. Regional Project Management Office Regional Advisory Committee Grievance officers National Grievance Committee Advisory committees at the national, regional, provincial, and city/municipal levels serve to enhance national ownership and promote joint Provincial Operation Office Provincial Advisory Committee efforts with partner agencies (e.g., the Depart- Grievance officers Provincial Grievance Committee ments of Health and Education), local implementers (i.e., local government units), and CSOs. Advisory Office of Municipal/City Links Municipal/City Advisory Committee Municipal/City Links Municipal/City Grievance Committee committees also act as grievance committees. At the national and regional levels, advisory/griev- ance committees are chaired by the Secretary and Beneficiaries grouped at village level, represented by parent leaders Regional Director of the DSWD, respectively, with a co-chair from the Departments of Education and Health. At the provincial and city/municipal Source: Authors’ compilation based on Pantawid Pamilya NPMO Operations Manual (DSWD 2012). levels, advisory/grievance committees are usually headed by local chief executives and consist of • The DSWD partners with civil society organizations (CSOs) representatives from partner agencies and NGOs. and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that serve as For instance, the regional advisory committee is chaired by “watch dogs” for project implementation. the regional director of the DSWD field office and composed • The DSWD has expanded staffing and continuously invested of regional directors of the partner agencies and representa- in training of staff and stakeholders. tives from CSOs. Similarly, the provincial advisory committee • The GRS was part of the original program design to capture is headed by the provincial governor, while the city/municipal any complaints and feedback, not only from program ben- advisory committees are headed by the mayor. Frontline field eficiaries, but also from citizens at large. workers, such as city/municipal links and local government unit links work directly with program beneficiaries with support 3. Institutional Arrangements for Pantawid from volunteer parent leaders nominated by beneficiaries. Pamilya and Its GRS The GRS Architecture The DSWD is the lead agency for the implementation of Pan- At the national level, the GRD is housed in the NPMO and has 17 tawid Pamilya. Over 11,000 program staff at all levels—national staff dedicated to overseeing and managing the GRS. The GRD to city/municipal—serve approximately four million ben- monitors and supervises the overall complaint handling process, eficiary households. The DSWD Secretary acts as the national coordinates monthly meetings of the National Grievance Com- program director and is responsible for providing the overall mittee, prepares monthly grievance reports, investigates and program direction. A national project management office resolves complaints that have been referred to the national (NPMO)—housed in the DSWD—and its subnational offices manage the day-to-day operations of the program with a PhP 3. Administrative expenses for the program are capped at 10 percent of the total program budget. The grievance redress staff is funded through the administrative budget. 62 billion budget (US$1.4 billion). The NPMO executes all plans, 4. A cluster is comprised of approximately 25,000 households and is usually a group of 5–10 policies, and activities of the program and is composed of 12 municipalities. 5. A barangay is the smallest administrative division in the Philippines and is the native Filipino divisions/units that also include the Grievance Redress Division term for a village. Municipalities and cities are composed of barangays. 4 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines level, categorizes and distributes complaints to the appropriate meetings, grievances are dis- level for resolution, maintains the grievance MIS database, and cussed, and if they cannot “The GRS is the builds the capacity of the grievance monitors at field levels. The be resolved at this level, they heart of operations. It GRD also analyzes trends in grievance reporting, identifies strate- are reported to the city/ connects, like a heart gies to address major problems, and reviews GRS guidelines to municipal link, where they does to other organs, to continuously improve them. are formally logged into the all other departments.” grievance redress mechanism Over 200 grievance officers are deployed in field offices to -Joel Galicia, Assistant Regional MIS and acted upon. serve as focal points at regional, provincial, and cluster levels. Director of Region 6 City/municipal links are the primary grievance redress focal Grievances related to a points on the front lines, entrusted with the responsibility of particular level are addressed accepting, recording, and investigating complaints. They work by the grievance unit just above that level. For instance, the closely with parent leaders in barangays to provide complain- national unit facilitates the resolution of serious grievances at ants with updated information on the status of complaints. all levels but particularly those that relate to the regional level. They also keep track of all grievances in their work areas. Addi- However, grievances that relate to the performance or behavior tionally, city/municipal links receive complaints from service of the city/municipal link can be reported directly to the pro- providers during their regular visits to schools and health clinics vincial, regional, or national Pantawid Pamilya office. in their work areas. The city/municipal links, local government unit links, and regional health and education focal persons are 4. Grievance Redress Procedure trained on the GRS. Pantawid Pamilya’s grievance redress procedure has seven steps Parent leaders are usually the first contact point for ben- (see figure 2), beginning with the receipt of the grievance. The eficiaries when issues arise, and they assist city/municipal program provides various means to file a grievance. Complainants links in communications related to grievances with project can directly submit grievances through complaint boxes, faxes, beneficiaries. A parent leader acts as a conduit of information emails (4psreklamo@gmail.com), text messages (09189122813), between beneficiaries and Pantawid Pamilya staff, playing an calls to a national hotline (952–6929), Facebook (Tanggapan ng important role in capturing grievances and facilitating grievance Reklamo), Twitter (@4psreklamo), or face-to-face—directly to redress.  Parent leaders are responsible for flagging potential independent NGO monitoring teams, Pantawid Pamilya offi- problems that beneficiaries might face in their cluster. They are cials (primarily city/municipal links), and/or parent leaders. Most given complaint forms to distribute to potential complainants. grievances are submitted through grievance forms. Indirect sub- Barangay/village assembly meetings provide a venue for missions include issues raised in monitoring reports by program beneficiaries to report grievances about the program. In these staff or other independent monitors, media reports, internal FIGURE 2 The GRS Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Receipt Recording Fact-Finding Resolution Initial Feedback Appeal Final Feedback Entry into Appeal to higher Receipt of the MIS; level if complainant Investigating Resolving the is not satisfied grievances assigning a Providing Providing and verifying grievance through tracking number, feedback to Decision of the feedback to facts of the based on various and referring complainant National Grievance complainant grievance guidelines channels to concerned Committee is final official and executory Source: DSWD 2014b with authors’ edits. 5 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines and external audits, and through elected officials during local FIGURE 3 legislative assemblies. Number of Grievances Received Every grievance is recorded into the logbook at the city/ 250 6 5.5 5.5 municipal level or into the program’s MIS at provincial and higher 216,706 levels. Information recorded includes the means by which the 4.8 5 200 complaint was reported; the date it was submitted; the com- 4 plainant’s name, address, and contact details—if provided; and 150 Thousands details of the complaint. Grievances received through grievance 122,953 3 2.8 forms are entered manually into a database and are automati- 100 85,425 cally assigned a tracking number. At the provincial level, com- 2 1.6 plaints can be directly entered into the system if online access 50 49,663 1 to the database is available. Where online access is unavailable, 10,963 forms can be sent to regional offices so that the grievance can 0 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 be entered in the MIS. The grievance is then transferred to the appropriate level, depending on its nature and location. Number of greivances Share of grievances to program HHs The third step of the process includes gathering facts related to the grievance. In principle, the official assigned the griev- Source: Authors based on GRD data (DSWD 2014a). ance—often the city/municipal link—is responsible for the fact- finding. In cases where the grievance is about the municipal/ Volume of grievances. In the past five years, the Pantawid city link, the assigned grievance officer is at the provincial or Pamilya’s GRS has received and recorded over 485,000 griev- cluster level. The fact-finding process involves the verification ances (figure 3) that have been stored in three databases: the of the identity of the complainant and the nature and status GRS Data Entry Applications Database,6 the Pantawid Text Hot- of the complaint as well as the compilation of supporting evi- line, and the Unified Information and Communication System– dence. The body responsible for the fact-finding then makes Client Relation Management (UNICS-CRM). The volume of recommendations for a resolution to the appropriate bodies grievances has increased significantly over time, from approxi- for consideration (e.g., the various grievance committees or the mately 50,000 in 2010 to approximately 217,000 in 2013. In 2013, health and/or education departments). the share of grievances over the number of beneficiary house- holds was approximately 5.5 percent, indicating that the GRS is The resolution step includes the action and decision-making well known and being widely utilized. process undertaken at different levels.  Annex 4 describes the common types of grievances that can occur at different stages In addition to the grievances recorded in the three databases, of program implementation as well as possible resolutions. If a a significant number of households are recorded and managed complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of the grievance in a separate sheet for exclusion errors due to their high vol- resolution, he/she can appeal the outcome as far up as the ume. For example, in 2013, more than 300,000 households were National Grievance Committee, whose decision is final.  Once a included in the sheet for exclusion errors against the 130,000 grievance is resolved, the complainant is informed of the out- grievances7 that were encoded into the databases (figure 4), pri- come of his/her complaint. If the complainant is anonymous, marily because local governments (cities and municipalities) can information about the resolution of the complaint is posted on claim exclusion errors on behalf of households in their areas in the relevant city/municipal and barangay/village bulletin boards.  addition to individual households filing grievances. Modes used for submitting grievances. Most grievances— 5. Key Grievance Trends 80–90 percent for the past three years—are submitted face- to-face, either through grievance forms or personal interviews The enormous amount of data about grievances that the GRS (figure 5). Since the activation of the Pantawid Text Hotline, an captures on a regular basis allows for an analysis of trends. This section presents some key grievance trends in Pantawid Pamilya 6. The utilization of the first application—GRS Data Entry Applications Database—ended in based on the data managed by the GRD. 2012; it has been replaced by UNICS-CRM. 7. Each grievance can include more than one household. 6 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 Exclusion Errors (in 2013) Modes for Submitting Grievances 350 304,143 2 households 6 7 300 3 7 11 250 22 40 Others Thousands 200 Text 70 Personal interview 129,735 150 grievances Form 91 100 41 50 0 Number of grievances Number of households (in the database) (in the sheet) 2011 2012 2013 Source: Authors based on GRD data (DSWD 2014a). Source: Authors based on GRD data (DSWD 2014a). increasing number of grievances are being received through 2011; non-beneficiaries accounted for 79 percent and 67 percent text messages. Due to the accessibility and cost, grievances filed of total grievances received in 2012 and 2013, respectively (figure through the Internet are still limited (2 percent in 2013). 7). Most grievances from non-beneficiaries relate to their exclu- sion from the program. Category of grievances. In the first two years, the dominant grievance was related to payments, comprising almost two-thirds Redress of grievances. Received grievances are usually of all received grievances (figure 6). Improved program imple- acted upon. The grievance redress rate is almost 100 percent. mentation has contributed to a decrease in grievances related This includes referrals by the GRS division to other relevant to compliance monitoring and payments. Over time, exclusion units/departments responsible for taking action on received errors have increased, accounting for more than half of total grievances. Therefore, in some instances, grievances are not grievances in 2012 and 2013, primarily due to program expansion resolved from the complainants’ perspective. Processing time and an increase in people’s awareness of the process and their has significantly improved since 2011. On average, the resolution expectations. time declined from 98 days in 2012 to 32 days in 2013. To illus- Grievance by type of complainant. The composition of trate, a total of US$71 million was retroactively paid to program complainant categories has changed over time: program benefi- households after verification as resolution for compliance- and ciaries accounted for 76 percent of total grievances received in payment-related grievances, (figure 8). FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 Category of Grievances Received Grievances by Type of Complainant 100 7 100 9 14 19 24 80 35 38 Others 80 Non-beneficiaries 67 Exclusion errors Beneficiaries 60 25 60 Compliance verification 60 Percent Percent 79 63 Payment 40 40 76 65 62 8 49 20 11 20 33 23 21 12 0 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 Source: Authors based on GRD data (DSWD 2014a). Source: Authors based on GRD data (DSWD 2014a). 7 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines FIGURE 8 of grievances related to exclusion errors can be verified by the Resolution of Payment-Related Grievances: project management office. Grievances involving household Amount of Retroactive Payment requests for reassessment or addition to Listahanan cannot be verified because those issues are handled by the National 50 Household Targeting Office. A recent analysis found that among 40.8 40 received grievances related to exclusion errors, only 47 percent were checked against the targeting database (the remaining 53 US$ (millions) 30 percent still needed to be checked), of which 14 percent were 23.2 20 found in the database (another 28 percent were not found). Only 2 percent were actually found to be poor as opposed to 10 12 percent that were found to be non-poor (figure 9). Twenty- 4.6 2.7 eight percent of complainants were not found in the targeting 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 database; they will be assessed in the next round of household assessments scheduled in 2014. Source: Authors based on GRD data (DSWD 2014a). The GRS played an important role in the de-listing of approx- imately 40,000 households—one percent of total active house- However, the resolution of some types of grievances can be holds in the program. Of these households, 23 percent were time-consuming. For example, in the case of exclusion errors, de-listed after having been found to be ineligible with regard action is initiated upon the receipt of the grievance, but the pro- to grievances related to inclusion errors, 40 percent were found cess for final resolution involves many intermediate steps, some to have regular sources of income, and 9 percent were found to of which are outside of the purview of the Pantawid Pamilya have reported fraudulent information (figure 10). Forty percent project management office. The Listahanan targeting database,8 of these households submitted voluntary waivers for de-listing which is managed by a separate entity outside the project man- because they felt they were not entitled to program benefits. agement office, must be checked to ascertain whether or not the excluded households have been assessed and then whether 6. GRS Strengths and Areas for Improvement or not they are actually eligible. Consequently, only some types The GRS has made great strides since its launch and has con- 8. The National Household Targeting System–Listahanan is a separate entity from the Panta- tributed to improving Pantawid Pamilya’s performance. Well- wid NPMO. The NPMO draws the lists of beneficiaries from Listahanan, but the household designed structures, sound business processes and standards, assessment is conducted by the National Household Targeting Office rather than by the Pantawid NPMO. and dynamic staff are some of the salient features in the current FIGURE 9 Addressing Grievances Related to Exclusion Errors 2 percent— 14 percent—in Listahanan poor poor or nonpoor? Resolved s ye 12 percent– nonpoor 47 percent— no 28 percent— s found in Listahanan? not in Listahanan ye po Checked in ssi Action initiated bly Listhanan? 4 percent— possibility in Listhanan no 53 percent— Action not initiated still waiting to be checked Source: Authors based on GRD data (DSWD 2014a). 8 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines FIGURE 10 direct involvement of beneficiaries has improved the DSWD’s Resolution of Grievances Related to Exclusion: understanding of implementation challenges. Reasons for Delisting Households Multiple channels exist for grievance submission, while the Inclusion errors—23% majority of grievances are still submitted face-to-face. While Waiver—28% this GRS offers several channels to file grievances, most griev- ances are submitted in person by complainants through parent leaders to city/municipal links. The share of grievances received through the recently activated Pantawid Text Hotline, which allows complainants to submit anonymous complaints through text messaging, is growing. At all levels, GRS business processes are conceptualized Fraud—9% and implemented well. The effectiveness and sustainability of Regular income—40% a large program is often determined by the extent to which its business processes are standardized and practiced. A GRS field Source: Authors based on GRD data (DSWD 2014a). manual, a comprehensive guide for the consistent handling of complaints, serves as a quick and easy reference to the GRS’s business processes and their application for field staff. Regard- system. With the rapid expansion of Pantawid Pamilya, how- ing the fact-finding process, information is often triangulated ever, the GRS has been stretched to its limit. Periodic assess- and verified through multiple sources. Finally, process flows for ments have identified its strengths and challenges, helping with each grievance type and subtype, along with corresponding its continued improvement. This section discusses the key procedural guidelines, resolution indicators, and timelines, are strengths of the GRS as well as areas for further improvement.9 revisited and updated based on the experience and documen- tation of the national and regional grievance officers. Key Strengths The DSWD demonstrates a strong commitment to invest A comprehensive database allows for the efficient record- and continuously strengthen the GRS. Program management ing and tracking of grievances. Received grievances are and staff recognize and value the grievance redress process as encoded into one of three databases: the Pantawid Text Hot- a means of strengthening performance, improving public rela- line, the GRS Data Entry Applications Database10 and the Unified tions, and enhancing accountability and transparency. Grievance Information and Communication System–Client Relation Man- redress is integrated into the program’s design and operation agement (UNICS-CRM). The first two legacy databases are being since inception. Pantawid Pamilya management integrates integrated into the UNICS-CRM, which tracks the nature, origin, grievance redress functions into staff job descriptions, regularly location, and status of complaints, such as targeting errors, pay- reviewing grievance data and trends and ensuring that the GRS ment irregularities, fraud, and corruption. The MIS program,11 is properly staffed and resourced. In May 2013, the DSWD intro- which stores large volumes of data on each of the 4 million duced a new GRS framework, which is being rolled out gradually, beneficiary households from the initial assessment stage to the that shifts from a “case-centric” to “client-centric” approach. payment stage, assists grievance officers in the quick resolution of registered grievances. The program invests in highly motivated GRS staff and training. Pantawid Pamilya’s GRS has in place well-designed Regular reporting and monitoring help flag implementation structures and 200+ dedicated staff. While the GRD at the issues early. An elaborate system of regular internal monitoring national level steers the overall grievance structure, units at and reporting at various levels allows staff to be aware of and lower levels are the “eyes and ears” for this large program. Front- efficiently resolve grievances. Frontline grievance officers keep line grievance monitors work hand-in-hand with beneficiaries 10. The utilization of the first application, the GRS Data Entry Applications Database, ended in and service providers to address and resolve grievances. Further, 2012. It has been replaced by UNICS-CRM. 11. The Pantawid Pamilya MIS has modules that validate household data at the assessment stage, continuously updates data on beneficiary households, monitors beneficiary compli- ance of program conditions based on reports from schools and health centers, controls 9. Some of the observations listed in this section are based on a November 2012 World Bank and produces payment data, and captures filed grievances about the program. The MIS also mission to assess the GRS. Field visits during the mission to Iloilo Province—one of the better connects the NPMO with 17 regional DSWD offices, allowing real-time data updates to the performing provinces with regard to grievance redress—influenced these observations. system. 9 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines case records and grievance logbooks to record and monitor officials and beneficiaries. The GRS is also instrumental in grievances.12 A system of spot checks by senior officials from the improving targeting through the validation of beneficiaries of GRD and third-party ex-post reviews are used as rapid evaluation Pantawid Pamilya, evidenced by the de-listing of approximately instruments that seek to determine the quality, effectiveness, and 40,000 households—1 percent of the total active households in efficiency of the GRS.13 Advisory committees at the municipal/ the program. city level produce monthly and quarterly accomplishment Areas for Improvement reports for the provincial advisory committee. The GRD regu- Despite these impressive strengths, in the spirit of continuous larly prepares reports for the DSWD on the volume and status improvement, Pantawid Pamilya’s GRD has identified several of grievances to identify systemic vulnerabilities in project areas that can further improve the GRS. implementation and design. The resolution rate and response time are regularly monitored. Other aspects of grievance The GRS can be more user-friendly. In practice, channels redress—such as impartiality, accuracy, and complainant satis- for submitting grievances do not protect the confidential- faction—will be captured in the future. ity and anonymity of complainants, despite the fact that this is a GRS principle. While face-to-face grievance submissions A series of strategic communications activities has are suitable for complaints that relate to targeting, payments, improved public knowledge of the program and of the and compliance verification (the top three grievance types), GRS. The well-implemented strategic communications plan this channel excludes complaints regarding issues such as staff increases public knowledge of both Pantawid Pamilya and behavior and informal payments. The Pantawid Text Hotline its GRS. The communications plan disaggregates and targets allows complainants to submit anonymous complaints, but various groups, including beneficiaries, partners, NGOs, civil it is not yet a preferred channel. Further, the availability and society, and the media, among others. For instance, the plan user-friendliness of the existing, complex, grievance submis- addresses specific behaviors to enhance parental awareness sion forms—only available in English in the offices of grievance of the CCT program conditions, to discourage the pawn- officers and city/municipal links—can be enhanced. The GRD ing of cash cards, and to encourage the submission of griev- recently introduced a complaint submission form that is easy to ances. These communication activities significantly influence fill out, which will be widely available to program beneficiaries/ public opinion about the program—so much so that it is complainants in local languages at convenient locations, such as now the government’s flagship antipoverty program despite schools, health centers, barangay halls, and family development the strong resistance to it in earlier years. General awareness session venues as well as with parent leaders. Beneficiaries are about the GRS has increased over the years, but GRS-related also encouraged to use other channels, like the text hotline, communication activities still continue to enhance beneficiary that offer more anonymity. awareness about its processes, such as resolution timelines and appellate procedures. For instance, grievance monitor- Direct communication with the complainant can be ing boards and drop boxes have been installed in barangays/ enhanced. A good practice principle for effective grievance villages, and radio programs funded by cities/municipalities are redress is to send an acknowledgement to the complainant— regularly held to address queries about the program. preferably in writing14—upon the receipt of the complaint as well as a response after the grievance has been resolved. This The GRS has helped to improve trust between program practice of universally acknowledging receipt of grievances is officials and beneficiaries. Grievances that are received are being standardized. Grievances received through the mail are usually acted upon. Because of the resolution for compliance now also being acknowledged and assigned a unique case track- and payment-related grievances, a total of US$71 million was ing number. The UNICS-CRM allows for automatic generation of retroactively paid to program households, enhancing the cred- acknowledgements. The practice of sending written responses ibility of the program and improving trust between program after final resolution is not common but is also being stream- lined. Most grievance officers and city/municipal links tend to 12. The existing GRS database does not capture the profile of the complainants. However, communicate with complainants verbally, informally, and often data on characteristics (e.g., indigenous people) exists in the targeting database and the in- digenous people’s unit. The GRD is considering linking these different databases to facilitate indirectly through parent leaders. deeper analysis. This will allow the program to reach vulnerable populations more effectively. 13. The spot check methodology includes interviews with beneficiaries, parent leaders, city/municipal links, health providers, school teachers, banks, local governments, regional 14. The acknowledgment usually contains the unique tracking number assigned to the griev- offices, and the central office, as well as a review of health facility records and school at- ance, the estimated time required for resolution, and the contact details of the official they tendance records. should approach if the grievance is not resolved. 10 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines Grievance resolution timelines can be made more realistic. thereby allowing the program to more effectively reach vulner- Initially, the stipulated resolution timeline for grievances was able populations. 26 days (DSWD 2012), regardless of the type of complaint. In Frontline staff requires additional training on griev- most cases, resolution involves action by other departments ance management. The GRS in Pantawid Pamilya has a fairly over which the GRD has no authority. Consequently, in practice, sophisticated arrangement for categorizing, routing, and most grievances were not resolved in the stipulated timeframe. tracking grievances. Although internal processes for resolv- Grievance redress officers were held accountable for grievance ing common grievances are well documented, field staff resolution, but other departments, without whose cooperation need more clarity on these processes in detail. As the primary grievances can not be resolved, are not. In November 2013, a grievance redress focal points, city/municipal links receive new set of resolution timelines specific to the type of com- on-the-job technical assistance from the more experienced plaint and clear-cut accountabilities for staff and other units cluster/regional grievance officers on an as-needed basis. involved were put in place to expedite grievance resolution. This ad hoc system works well in some provinces/clusters, The new resolution timelines range from a minimum of 20 days but not in others. Additionally, there is a high rate of staff to a maximum of 156 days. turnover/mobility due to the short duration of employment Grievance redress indicators can be client-centric. A key contracts. Further, while a GRS operational manual and a field performance indicator for staff responsible for grievance handbook exist, they are not easily available to all city/municipal redress is the percentage of grievances resolved. This, com- links and cluster grievance officers. The availability of reference pounded with an unrealistic stipulated resolution timeline, material and training will go a long way in improving grievance creates a strong tendency for treating grievances as resolved redress skills and the productivity of existing and new staff. when they have been referred to other units or departments Way Forward for further action, resulting in high rates of grievance resolution Pantawid Pamilya management is committed to the continuous despite grievances not actually being resolved from the com- improvement of the program and has embarked on a series of plainants’ perspective. This leads to complainant dissatisfaction. initiatives to further improve the existing GRS. A recent World Complainants are not interested in the intermediate steps, but Bank mission that conducted a rapid assessment of the GRS in the final resolution of their grievances. The grievance tracking in November 2012 helped identify several areas for further system can be made client-centric so that it focuses on final improvement. Pantawid Pamilya management is now reviewing rather than partial resolutions. The GRD is undertaking the rel- existing GRS business and quality assurance processes to move evant assessments to reconcile this. from a case-centric to a client-centric approach. An assessment Grievance data analysis capacity can be further enhanced of the existing organizational structure and human resource to realize the full potential of the GRS as a performance man- requirements is also underway. Finally, a review of the client agement tool. The rich repository of grievance data collected relations management information system is being undertaken through diverse channels is an unparalleled source of informa- to facilitate the effective access and use of information. tion for evidence-based decision making to improve program performance. An Analysis and Evaluation Services Unit within 7. Implications for Practitioners the GRD captures and classifies a wide variety of grievance The operational lessons learned from the rapid expansion of data in regular reports. The NPMO has recently taken steps Pantawid Pamilya may be relevant for practitioners interested to enhance the quality of these reports in order to improve in setting up grievance redress mechanisms in similar large-scale analysis of the program and provide more disaggregated data. social programs. The key lessons are summarized in this section. While aggregated figures at the national/regional level help in the understanding of overall trends, disaggregation at the lower Management of human resources. GRSs for programs that levels (i.e., the cluster and municipal levels) can help identify serve a large number of beneficiaries tend to be more com- problems and tailor context-specific solutions. Further, while plex and hence require dedicated staff for grievance manage- the existing GRS database does not capture the profile of the ment. Staff in charge of grievance redress should be skilled and complainants, data on characteristics (e.g., indigenous people) professional. Therefore, project management should identify exists in the targeting database and the Indigenous People’s high-caliber staff at all levels of their projects, assign them Unit. These databases can be linked to facilitate deeper analysis, responsibilities for handling grievances, and create incentives to 11 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines retain them. Setting up a small grievance management unit at well-designed and fully functional GRS cannot capture all the the central level helps in the effective roll-out of GRS-related problems faced by a large program. Experience suggests that activities. At lower levels of the project, existing project staff some types of grievances are more likely than others to be can be assigned grievance redress functions. Volunteer com- underreported because of their sensitivity. Grievances related munity members—such as Pantawid Pamilya’s parent lead- to misdemeanors and external pressures are cases in point. If ers—can also be trained to undertake basic grievance redress misdemeanors and external pressures are widespread and sys- activities. The Pantawid Pamilya’s case is a robust example of temic, and if a large number of people are affected in a cer- a well-functioning multilevel GRS with a data collection and a tain area, then it is likely that the GRS will pick up the problem verification system. However, in lower-capacity environments, because some complaints will be filed. However, if the practice it is better to start small and build on existing and even informal is isolated and sporadic across several geographic areas with mechanisms for redress in selected areas. few people affected, the GRS may not capture the problem because people may be reluctant to file complaints. The GRS Coordination with other departments and ministries. A must be complemented with other tools, such as financial con- number of interdepartmental coordination issues and chal- trols, regular monitoring, and spot checks, so that isolated and lenges exist in large programs like Pantawid Pamilya that hamper sporadic cases can be detected or prevented. the effectiveness of a GRS. While some can be addressed within the GRS structure, most concern other departments of the pro- GRS monitoring and quality assurance. Monitoring is the gram and require collective action by management. Some also cornerstone of an effective GRS. Broadly speaking, these are require the attention of other line ministries. Consequently, the three key stages in the GRS monitoring process: data col- holding the GRS structure accountable for grievance resolution lection, analysis, and reporting. Due to the complexity of large is not sufficient. Mechanisms and incentives are required for programs, several issues and challenges that relate to integrating other departments and line ministries to act on grievances for data collection/management, developing analytical capacity, smooth interdepartmental coordination. Additionally, higher- and measuring the quality of grievance handling are likely to level bureaucratic and political support—to resolve higher-level emerge as a program rapidly expands. Developing operational grievances, to ensure interdepartmental coordination, and to procedures, guidelines, and flowcharts for standardizing griev- drive required systemic changes—are critical. Mechanisms to ance management helps with quality control. Finally, the per- foster such support include educating parliamentarians, identi- formance of the GRS should not be solely measured by the fying and fostering champions, and increasing meaningful public number of grievances received or resolved but should also awareness on the GRS. include complainant satisfaction. The GRS as a performance management tool. Program Disseminating information about the GRS. The GRS should management needs to recognize the utility of a GRS as a tool to focus on creating awareness of beneficiaries about the GRS, its improve program performance. This means that staff needs to processes, organizational structure, resolution timelines, appel- change their perceptions on grievances and the GRS. Citizens late procedures, and so on. Often, management feels that any should be encouraged to file their grievances. If collected and communication regarding the GRS results in adverse publicity. analyzed properly, grievances and other stakeholder feedback This may be the case in the immediate term, but not so over the provide a pulse on program implementation and performance. medium to long term when a well-functioning GRS enhances program visibility and credibility. Properly sequencing GRS- Equally importantly, they help in the understanding of how the related communication activities can prevent potential adverse GRS is functioning. Specific incentives must be created for pro- publicity. Providing information to potential GRS users about gram and GRS staff at all levels to expeditiously, appropriately, actions that have been taken to resolve grievances enhances the and satisfactorily resolve grievances. Likewise, incentives should trust of beneficiaries in the system, encouraging and reassuring also help to prevent the recurrence of similar grievances. The them to use the GRS. Effective grievance redress mechanisms underlying idea of building in incentives is to motivate staff to often provide feedback by contacting the complainant directly identify and implement ways to continually improve program (if his/her identity is known) and/or posting the results of cases performance. in high-profile locations and conveying the results through radio The GRS as a complement to other internal controls. broadcasts and other media. They also inform GRS users about A grievance redress system alone is not a panacea. Even a their right to appeal if they are dissatisfied with decisions. 12 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines Annex 1. Conditions for Receiving Cash Grants To take advantage of the cash grants available under Pantawid Pamilya, • Children 6–14 years old must receive deworming pills twice per year. beneficiaries should comply with the following conditions:  The health grant is a lump sum of PhP 500 (US$11) per month per • Pregnant women must avail themselves of pre- and post-natal care household, and the education grant is PhP 300 (US$7) per month per child, and be attended by a trained health professional during childbirth; to a maximum of three children per household. Beginning in June 2014, the • Parents must attend family development sessions;14 education grant is extended to 18-year-olds (until high school), with an • Children 0–5 years old must receive regular growth monitoring check- increased amount of PhP 500 per month per child in high school. ups and vaccines; Source: DSWD 2012 with updates in 2014. • Children 3–14 years old must enroll in day care, pre-school, elementary, or high school and must attend at least 85 percent of the time; Annex 2. The Pantawid Pamilya Implementation Cycle Pantawid Pamilya follows an eight-step implementation cycle. In Step eligible if they are classified as poor based on Listahanan data, include 1, geographic targeting was used to roll out the program in phases, pri- children up to 14 years old and/or a pregnant woman, and agree to meet oritizing poor province and municipalities to start with, based on pov- program conditions (specified in annex 1). In Step 4, eligible households are erty incidence (Small Area Estimate produced by NSCB).15 In Step 2, the validated and registered in a community assembly meeting, and in Step 5, program undertakes a supply-side assessment of health and education the list of beneficiary households is confirmed and finalized by the NPMO systems at the city/municipality, and barangay/village level to ensure that within two weeks. In Step 6, grants are released to beneficiary households local government units and key partner agencies are willing and able to without conditions. Step 7 involves compliance verification that provides meet the increasing demands of the new beneficiaries. In Step 3, once the regular feedback on the beneficiaries’ status and compliance to program geographical areas are identified, eligible households are selected through conditions. Compliance verification is carried out every two months by the Proxy Means Test (PMT), which examines each household through the DSWD and the education and health service providers. Step 8 involves certain variables, such as ownership of assets, type of housing, education the release of succeeding cash grants after the verification of compliance of household members, and access to water. Households are considered of program conditions is completed. 3 4 5 Selection of households Community assembly Family registry preparation (enumeration, PMT, and (registration and validation (final list of enrolled Pantawid Pamilya eligibility check) of households) beneficiaries with LBP) 2 Supply-side assessment 6 (availability of health and education First release facilities and service providers 1 7 Selection of 8 Verification of provinces/municipalities Second succeeding releases compliance with conditions (SAE) Community assemblies updates/grievance and complaints Source: DSWD 2012. 14. As a unique feature of the program, family development sessions serve as important venues for enhancing beneficiaries’ knowledge and skills, allowing them to become more productive and responsive in meeting family needs and enabling them to perform their parental roles and responsibilities. 15. Poor provinces, municipalities, and cities are selected based on poverty incidence according to 2003 Small Area Estimates produced by the National Statistical Coordination Board. 13 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines Annex 3. Risks and Mitigation Measures in Pantawid Pamilya Implementation Process Potential Risks Mitigation Measures Geographic targeting sets priority • Government officials or politicians may • Geographic areas are selected based on official areas in which program is rolled out implement the CCT program in favored statistics on poverty incidence. in phases based on incidence of areas (corruption). • Corruption cases are referred to the GRS unit in the poverty NPMO or to regional grievance committees. • Politicians may claim credit for the CCT • Mass communication efforts, especially before program to manipulate their constituency. elections, inform citizens of this national, politically unbiased program. A supply-side assessment ensures • Inadequate education and health services • DSWD conducts supply-side assessment. that beneficiaries have access to do not allow beneficiaries to comply with • Local government units commit to adequate health and education services program conditions. provisions of health and education services through a memorandum of agreement. Selection of poor households to • Households may provide false information • Beneficiary selection is strictly based on a proxy be eligible beneficiaries based on to be eligible for the program (fraud). means test using observable characteristics. proxy means test and if household • Inclusion errors include non-poor in the • The GRS receives grievances related to inclusion/ includes children or pregnant program. exclusion errors. women • Exclusion errors exclude actual poor from • Data from household assessments is verified to the program. rectify errors. Registration of beneficiary • Politician may register supporters or • Households are centrally selected by DSWD based households through community exclude opponents. on standardized criteria and without political assemblies interference. • Household may not report updated status • Expedited updates capture changes in eligibility to keep eligibility for receiving CCT grants. status of beneficiaries. • Education and health facilities monitor registered household members. Compliance verification through • Schools and health centers may not report • Standardized and detailed timelines are schools and health centers compliance verification of beneficiaries. implemented for compliance verification. • Fraud and errors in filling and encoding • Compliance-related grievances are received by the compliance verification forms can occur. GRS and investigations are conducted to determine • Staffing and MIS may not be adequate to whether or not beneficiaries actually complied with handle compliance processing. program conditions. Payments generated based on the • Weak processing capacity of • Financial conduits are strengthened and diversified results of compliance verification; implementation agency and financial to allow for the efficient and timely delivery of grants received via cash card or conduits may result in delays and grants to beneficiaries. over the counter inaccuracis in payouts to beneficiaries. • Beneficiaries may be charged illegal fees or • Payment-related complaints are received by the GRS obliged to give shares to others without that are validated with payroll, compliance results, valid reasons (extortion). and beneficiary information. • Grants are retroactively processed to beneficiaries as needed, based on validation. Source: Updated by authors based on inputs from Arulpragasam et al. 2011. 14 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines Annex 4. Common Grievance Types and their Resolution Grievance Relates to Action by Process for Validation and Resolution Schools and health centers Advisory Committee a Advisory committee discusses and addresses issues related to the provision (supply side) of education and health services through additional investments and service improvement. Household selection— National Household Targeting The National Household Targeting Office verifies whether complainant exclusion error (exclusion Office, Pantawid Pamilya households are included in the targeting database. If not, complainants are of poor from program) project management office, informed about the next household assessment. In the meantime, they are and/or municipality/city referred to the municipality/city for other available social services. If they are, the original household assessment result and poverty status of the households are validated. If the households are confirmed as poor, they are included in the program after a final eligibility check conducted by the Pantawid Pamilya PMO. Household selection— Pantawid Pamilya project The project management office verifies data from the original household inclusion error (inclusion of management office and assessment results and targeting database.  If there appears to be an error, non-poor in program) city/municipal grievance household assessment is conducted again. Results from the original household committee assessment and reconducted household assessment are provided to the city/ municipal grievance committee for deliberation and final resolution. Compliance and payment Pantawid Pamilya project The Pantawid Pamilya project management office verifies payment, compliance (non-payment, reduced management office data, and/or registration data. Retroactive payment is processed if beneficiaries payment, or delays in have complied with conditions or if compliance was beyond their control payment) (e.g., service providers made errors in filling out compliance forms, if there were errors in MIS processing, etc.). Corruption Pantawid Pamilya national The NPMO and regional grievance committee take appropriate action and project management forward grievance to appropriate agency for further investigation, if warranted. office and regional grievance committee a. Given that health is decentralized to municipalities, grievances related to health services are referred to the municipal advisory committee. Grievances related to education are referred to the regional advisory committee. In parallel, supply-side gaps related to health and education are also addressed at the national advisory committee. Source: Authors’ compilation. 15 Grievance Redress System of the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Phillippines References Agarwal, Sanjay, and David Post. 2011. “Feedback Matters: Designing Effective ———. 2014a. Grievance Redress System Database. Grievance Redress Mechanisms for Bank-Financed Projects.” Parts 1 and ———. 2014b. Grievance Redress System Field Manual. 2, Social Development Department and GAC in Projects How-To Notes, ———. 2014c. Pantawid Pamilya Grievance Redress System Website: http:// World Bank, Washington DC. pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/index.php/4ps-systems/grievance-redress-system. Arulpragasam, Jehan, Luisa Fernandez, Yasuhiko Matsuda, Rosechin Olfindo, ———. 2014d. Pantawid Pamilya Website: http://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/. and Matt Stephens, 2011. “Building Governance and Anti-Corruption in the Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pantawidpamilya. Philippines’ Conditional Cash Transfer Program.” Social Protection Policy Social Weather Stations. 2012. “Spot Checks to Monitor the Operations of the Note 1, World Bank, Washington DC. Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) Phase IV Main Findings Report.” Fernandez, Luisa, and Rosechin Olfindo. 2011. “Overview of the Philippines’ Velarde, Rashiel, and Luisa Fernandez. 2011. “Welfare and Distributional Impacts Conditional Cash Transfer Program: The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Pro- of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.” Social Protection Policy Note gram—Pantawid Pamilya.” Social Protection Policy Note 2, World Bank, 3, World Bank, Washington, DC. Washington, DC. World Bank. 2013. “A Rapid Assessment Report of the Grievance Redress Sys- Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). 2012. Operations tem (GRS) for the Conditional Cash Transfer Program in the Philippines: Manual of Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program. Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.” World Bank, Washington DC. Acknowledgments This note was prepared by Darshana Patel, Yuko Okamura, Shanna Elaine B. Rogan, and Sanjay Agarwal of the World Bank under the overall guidance of Helene Grandvoinnet. The authors are grateful to the peer reviewers of the note Patricia Fernandes, Simon Carl O’Meally, Aleksandra Posarac, and Matthew James Keir Stephens for their constructive comments, and to Nazmul Chaudhury, Motoky Hayakawa, and Susan Wong for their invaluable insights and contributions. The note would have not been possible without the active cooperation and invaluable contributions of a large number of officials and employees at all levels of the Department of Social Welfare Development, Philippines, who work on Pantawid Pamilya and its GRS. In particular, the authors would like to express their gratitude to Secretary Corazon “Dinky” Soliman, the National Project Director Rodora Babaran, and Grievance Redress Division Head Asuncion D. Basco and her staff. Lastly, the authors are grateful to Laura Johnson for excellent editorial support, design, and formatting assistance. This case study further benefited from GPF funding provided by the GAC-in-Operations Program. All errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this case study are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, or its affiliated organizations, or to members of its board of executive directors, or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. 16