2009 Philippine Poverty Statistics

2009 Official Poverty Statistics:
Towards Better Targeted and Focused Poverty Reduction Programs
Presented by Romulo A. Virola

Secretary General National Statistical Coordination Board
Human Development Cluster Meeting

4:00 PM, 17 March 2011 Bulwagan ng Karunungan, Department of Education
Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011
NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD
Outline of Presentation
I.
Introduction
II. 2009 Official Poverty Statistics A. National B. Regional/Provincial III. Some Policy/Program Implications
I. Introduction SOURCE OF OFFICIAL POVERTY STATISTICS IN THE PHILIPPINES Executive Order 352 Designation of Statistical Activities that will Generate Critical Data for Decision-making of the Government and the Private Sector Issued on July 1, 1996 The Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics (TC PovStat) created by the NSCB is in charge of the formulation/development of the official poverty estimation methodology. The NSCB generates and releases the official poverty statistics in the Philippines.
I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS What is the Food Threshold? Refers to the minimum income/expenditure required for a family/individual to meet the basic food needs, which satisfies the nutritional requirements for economically necessary and socially desirable physical activities
Also referred to as the subsistence threshold or the food poverty line
I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS What is the Poverty Threshold? Refers to the minimum income/expenditure required for a family/individual to meet the basic food and non-food requirements
Basic Non-Food Requirement includes: 1) clothing and footwear; 2) fuel, light and water; 3) housing maintenance and other minor repairs; 4) rental of occupied dwelling units; 5) medical care; 6) education; 7) transportation & communication; 8) non-durable furnishing; 9) household operations and 10) personal care and effects Basic Non-Food Requirement excludes: 1) recreation; 2) tobacco; 3) alcoholic beverages; 4) durable furnishings; 5) taxes; 6) special family occasion expenditure; 7) total gifts and contributions; 8) total other disbursements (e.g., major repair of house, loans granted to person outside family; amortization of real property).
Is equal to the cost of minimum basic needs: food + non-food
I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS Who are the Food Poor/Core Poor? Refers to families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure less than the per capita food threshold
Who are the Poor? Refers to families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure less than the per capita poverty threshold
If a family is poor, all the members of the family are considered poor
I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS What is the Magnitude of the Food Poor/Core Poor? Refers to the number of families/individuals who are food poor/core poor
What is the Magnitude of the Poor? Refers to the number of families/individuals who are poor
I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS What is subsistence incidence? Refers to the proportion of families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure less than the per capita food threshold to the total number of families/ individuals Is Equal to the proportion of the food poor What is poverty incidence? Refers to the proportion of families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure less than the per capita poverty threshold to the total number of families/individuals Is Equal to the proportion of the poor Both subsistence incidence and poverty incidence can be expressed as proportion of families or proportion of individuals
I. Introduction
The 1st official poverty estimation methodology was adopted in 1987. Between 1987-2011 (24 years), there were three refinements on the methodology since its adoption. History of the official poverty estimation methodology Year 1987 1992 2003 1st 2nd Refinements were made so as not to overestimate poverty Refinements were made to generate provincial poverty statistics by using regional menus priced using provincial prices. Refinenements were undertaken to enhance comparability of estimates across space and over time.
Refinements
Considerations
2010
3rd
I. Introduction
SOME CONSIDERATIONS IN REFINING THE METHODOLOGY: 1. To introduce refinements in the methodology at the beginning of the administration (or end of the administration) to avoid misconceptions that the refinements are politically motivated. . Back estimates using the refined methodology should be released to ensure that trend analysis could be undertaken in the poverty estimates. Enhance comparability of poverty estimates across space. Enhance comparability of poverty estimates over time. To review the methodology every ten years/use the methodology for at least 12 years (two administrations)
2.
3. 4. 5.
10 RAVirola/17 March 2011
I. Introduction APPROVED REFINEMENTS IN THE OFFICIAL POVERTY ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

Component Old 2003 Methodology Income-based Food Threshold Estimation Food Bundle Regional Provincial
(Based on a national reference food bundle)
2010 Refined Methodology
Price Data Used Non-Food Threshold Estimation Reference Family
Provincial Indirect
+/-10 percentile band around the food threshold per province urban-rural
Provincial Indirect
+/-10 percentile band around the food threshold at the national level
Constant/Changing
Changing
Constant
(Average of 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009)
I. Introduction
National food bundle PROVINCIAL food bundle
100% RENI for energy 100% RENI for protein 80% RENI for vitamins and minerals
Visualizable
LEAST cost
Food eaten in the area
Actual Prices
Farmgate Price
Retail Price
FOOD THRESHOLD
If income/expenditure of family/individual is less than food threshold

Provincial SUBSISTENCE INCIDENCE and MAGNITUDE OF SUBSISTENCE POOR
I. Introduction
ACTUAL Non-Food Basic Needs Education Clothing & footwear Medical care Transportation & communication Fuel, light & water Housing Housing maintenance & other minor repairs Non-durable furnishings Household operations Personal care & effects Rental of occupied dwelling unit
Food threshold
Non-food threshold Constant FE/TBE ratio
POVERTY THRESHOLD
If income/expenditure of family/individual is less than poverty threshold

Provincial POVERTY INCIDENCE and MAGNITUDE OF POOR
I. Introduction
National reference food bundle from the Test of Revealed Preference
Meal Time Breakfast Viands Scrambled egg Coffee with milk Boiled rice/rice-corn mix Lunch Boiled/ginataang monggo with malunggay and dried dilis Banana Boiled rice/corn mix Dinner Fried fish/boiled pork Vegetable dish Boiled rice/rice-corn mix Snacks Bread or boiled rootcrop
Sample translation: NCR

Meal Time Breakfast Boiled rice Coffee with milk Lunch Boiled monggo with malunggay and dried dilis Banana, latundan Boiled rice Dinner Fried tulingan Boiled kangkong Boiled rice Snacks Pandesal Viands Scrambled egg
I. Introduction
Sample translation: Nueva Ecija

Meal Time Breakfast Boiled rice Coffee with milk Lunch Boiled monggo with malunggay and dried dilis Banana, latundan Boiled rice Dinner Fried tulingan Boiled kangkong Boiled rice Snacks Boiled camote Viands Scrambled egg
I. Introduction
Sample translation: Zamboanga del Norte

Meal Time Breakfast Boiled rice Coffee with milk Lunch Boiled monggo with malunggay and dried dilis Banana, latundan Boiled rice Dinner Fried galunggong Boiled kangkong Boiled rice Snacks Boiled saba Viands Scrambled egg
III. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics
II. Highlights of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

A. NATIONAL
In general, poverty estimates using both the old and refined methodology showed the same trend/pattern. In terms of levels, the use of the old methodology yielded higher poverty estimates as compared with those generated based on the refined methodology. Old Methodology Indicators Among families Subsistence Incidence (%) Magnitude of Food Poor million) Poverty Incidence (%) Magnitude of Poor million) Among individuals Subsistence Incidence (%) Magnitude of Food Poor million) Poverty Incidence (%) (in 13.5 10.8 30.0 23.8 14.6 12.2 32.9 27.6 13.9 12.2 32.6 28.5 11.1 8.8 24.9 19.8 11.7 9.9 26.4 22.2 10.8 9.4 26.5 23.1 (2.4) (18.5) (5.1) (16.8) (2.9) (18.9) (6.5) (19.6) (3.1) (23.0) (6.1) (18.9) (in (in 10.2 1.7 24.4 4.0 11.0 1.9 26.9 4.7 10.3 1.9 26.3 4.9 8.2 1.4 20.0 3.3 8.7 1.5 21.1 3.7 7.9 1.5 20.9 3.9 (2.0) (17.6) (4.4) (17.5) (2.3) (21.1) (5.8) (21.3) (2.4) (21.1) (5.4) (20.4) 2003 2006 2009 2003 Refined 2006 2009 2003 Difference 2006 2009
18
Human Development Cluster Meeting (in million) RAVirola/17 March 2011
Magnitude of Poor
II. Highlights of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics A. NATIONAL

On the average, the food thresholds and the poverty thresholds are lower by 8% and 12%, respectively, using the refined methodology as compared to the old methodology!
Food Threshold for a Family of Five (in Php)
8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000
4,177 5,298
-8.1%
Poverty Threshold for a Family of Five (in Php)

9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,129 5,000 4,000 3,000
-10.8%
7,953
-11.8%
4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
4,869
-7.7%
6,274
7,017
-11.3%
3,395
-7.0%
3,857
5,562
3,157
4,573
2003
Old
2006
Refined
2009
2003
Old
2006
Refined
2009
II. Highlights of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics A. NATIONAL

Subsistence incidence and poverty incidence are lower by about 2 and 5 percentage points, respectively, using the refined methodology as compared to the old methodology.
Subsistence Incidence among Families (%)
30.0
Poverty Incidence among Families (%)

30.0 24.4
-5.8 -4.4
26.9
26.3
-5.4
20.0
20.0
10.2 11.0
-2.3
20.0
21.1
20.9
10.3
-2.4
10.0
-2.0
10.0
8.2
2003
Old
8.7
7.9
0.0
2006
Refined
2009
2003
Old
2006
Refined
2009
III. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics A. NATIONAL

In 2009, family of five* needed PhP 160 daily income to meet food needs and PhP 231 to stay out of poverty!
Daily Food Threshold for a Family of Five (in PhP)
300 250
200 250
Daily Poverty Threshold for a Family of Five (in PhP)

231
183
200 150 104 100 50 0 1991 2003 2006 55 127
160
150 100
Inflation for food: 50 2006-2009:24.3%
150
79
2009
1991
2003
2006
2009
Note: Applying 2010/ Ave. of Jan & Feb 2011 Food CPI to 2009 Food threshold:
Note: Applying 2010/ Ave. of Jan and Feb. 2011 CPI for all items to 2009 poverty threshold:
2010 : Phils = PhP 165
2010 threshold= PhP 240 2011 threshold= PhP 246 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD
21
2011 : Phils = PhP 170
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics A. NATIONAL

Among FAMILIES: Subsistence incidence among families improved from 8.7% in 2006 to 7.9% in 2009. Out of 100 families --- 9 families were classified as food poor in 2006, this was reduced to 8 out of 100 families in 2009.
30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1991
Subsistence Incidence among Families (%)
30.0 25.0 20.0
28.3
21.1[20.3, 21.8]
[19.2, 20.7]
13.3
[7.8, 8.7]
15.0
20.0
(0.2)
20.9
8.2
8.7
(0.8)
[8.2, 9.1]
10.0 5.0 0.0 1991
[20.2, 21.6]
7.9
[7.5, 8.3]
2003 2006 2009
2003 2006 2009

Among FAMILIES: In terms of poverty incidence among families, there was only a slight reduction during the three-year period from 21.1% in 2006 to 20.9% in 2009. Subsistence Incidence among Families (%) Poverty Incidence among Families (%)
30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1991
30.0 25.0 20.0
28.3
21.1[20.3, 21.8]
[19.2, 20.7]
13.3
[7.8, 8.7]
15.0
20.0
(0.2)
20.9
8.2
8.7
(0.8)
[8.2, 9.1]
10.0 5.0 0.0 1991
[20.2, 21.6]
7.9
[7.5, 8.3]
2003 2006 2009
2003 2006 2009

Among POPULATION: Subsistence incidence among population improved from 11.7% in 2006 to 10.8% in 2009! Out of 100 Filipinos -- 12 Filipinos were classified as food poor in 2006, this was reduced to 11 in 2009!
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
[10.5, 11.7]
Subsistence Incidence among Population (in %)
35 30 25
Poverty Incidence among Population (in %)
33.1
[25.5, 27.3] [24.1, 25.8]
26.4 26.5
[25.6, 27.3]
24.9
0.1
16.5 11.7 [11.1, 12.3] 11.1

(0.9)
20 15 10 5 0
10.8
[10.3, 11.3]
1991 Human Development Cluster Meeting
2003 2006 2009
1991
2003 2006 2009

Among POPULATION: In terms of poverty incidence among population, there was a very slight increase during the three-year period from 26.4% in 2006 to 26.5% in 2009.
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
[10.5, 11.7]
Subsistence Incidence among Population (in %)
35 30 25
Poverty Incidence among Population (in %)
33.1
[25.5, 27.3] [24.1, 25.8]
26.4 26.5
[25.6, 27.3]
24.9
0.1
16.5 11.7 [11.1, 12.3] 11.1

(0.9)
20 15 10 5 0
10.8
[10.3, 11.3]
1991 Human Development Cluster Meeting
2003 2006 2009
1991
2003 2006 2009

MAGNITUDE among FAMILIES: Magnitude of subsistence poor families decreased by about 58,000 from 1.51 million in 2006 to 1.45 million in 2009! However, in terms of magnitude of poor families, there was an increase of about 185,000 from 3.67 million in 2006 to 3.86 million out of in 2009! Magnitude of Subsistence Poor Families (in million)
2.00
4.00
Magnitude of Poor Families (in million)

3.67
3.86
1.60
1.50
1.51
3.50
3.39 3.29
5.2%
1.36
1.00
1.45
(4.0%)
3.00 2.50 2.00
0.50
1991 2003 2006 2009
1991
2003 2006 2009

MAGNITUDE among POPULATION: Magnitude of subsistence poor population decreased by about 410,000 in 2009 from 9.9 million in 2006 to 9.4 million in 2009! The magnitude of poor population increased by almost 970,000 Filipinosfrom 22.2 million in 2006 to 23.1 in 2009 by 4.4%. Magnitude of Subsistence Poor Magnitude of Poor Population Population (in million) (in million)
25.00 24.00 23.00 22.00
15.00 14.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00
23.14
22.17 20.89
10.40 8.80
9.85
21.00 20.00
4.4 %
19.80
9.44
(4.2%)
1991 2003 2006 2009
19.00 18.00 17.00 16.00 15.00 1991
2003
2006
2009
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics NATIONAL:

While food poverty and poverty deteriorated between 2003 and 2006, these
improved between 2006 and 2009 except for the increases in the poverty incidence among population, magnitude of poor families and magnitude of poor population. The increases, however, were not as much as between 2003 and 2006! Summary of increases/decreases:
Indicator AMONG FAMILIES Subsistence Incidence, Families Poverty Incidence, Families Magnitude of Food Poor Families Magnitude of Poor Families AMONG POPULATION Subsistence Incidence, Population Poverty Incidence, Population Magnitude of Food Poor Population Magnitude of Poor Population +0.6 + 1.5 +1.05 million +2.38 million - 0.9 + 0.1 - 0.41 million + 0.97 million + 0.5 + 1.1 + 154,000 + 378,000 - 0.8 - 0.2 - 58,000 + 185,000 2003 to 2006 2006 to 2009
28

Income shortfall of the poor decreased between 2006 and 2009!
FGT measure
2003
2006
2009
Inc/Dec 03-06 06-09 (1.5) 24.4 19.2
Income gap Total Cost (in pesos) Per Capita Cost

(in pesos)
27.7 60.2 B 3,040
27.2 80.5 B 3,631
25.7 100.2 B 4,328
(0.5) 33.7 19.4
In 2009, the average income of a poor Pinoy needed to be increased by 25.7% of the poverty threshold or Php 4,328 ; Assuming direct cash transfers, this means that the government needed a total of PhP 100.2 billion in 2009 to eliminate poverty in the country. It must be noted that budget allocated for CCT amounts to: 2009 7.9B; 2010 10B; 2011 21.194B 29 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rose faster than prices of food!
Indicator Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Inflation (all items) Annual Per Capita Food Threshold Mean/average per capita income (APCI) All income groups 35,788 43,538 21.7 2006 8.7 130.7 137.9 9,257 2009 7.9 162.4 160.0 11,686 % Change (0.8) 24.3 16.0 26.2
First decile class

Second decile class Third decile class Fourth decile class Fifth decile class Sixth decile class Seventh decile class Eight decile class Ninth decile class
7,389
11,263 14,599 18,249 22,781 28,493 36,551 48,200 69,335
9,681
14,542 18,542 23,003 28,281 35,068 44,358 58,362 83,662
31.0
29.1 27.0 26.0 24.1 23.1 21.4 21.1 20.7
30 RAVirola/17Tenth decile class March 2011
151,130 22.4 NATIONAL STATISTICAL 184,997 COORDINATION BOARD

Average per capita income of the bottom 30% of families rose faster than prices of all items!
Indicator Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Inflation (all items) Annual Per Capita Poverty Threshold Mean/average per capita income (APCI) All income groups 35,788 43,538 21.7 2006 21.1 130.7 137.9 13,348 2009 20.9 162.4 160.0 16,841 % Change (0.2) 24.3 16.0 26.2
First decile class Second decile class Third decile class

Fourth decile class Fifth decile class Sixth decile class Seventh decile class Eight decile class
7,389 11,263 14,599

18,249 22,781 28,493 36,551 48,200 69,335 151,130
9,681 14,542 18,542

23,003 28,281 35,068 44,358 58,362 83,662 184,997
31.0 29.1 27.0

26.0 24.1 23.1 21.4 21.1 20.7 22.4
31
Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March decile class Tenth 2011
Ninth decile class
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL

Caraga and Region IX consistently posted the highest subsistence incidence among families in 2006 and 2009!
Region PHILIPPINES Subsistence incidence among families 2003 2006 2009 8.2 8.7 7.9
Caraga Region IX Region X

Region VIII Region VII Region V Region XII Region XI Region IV-B ARMM Region VI CAR Region I Region II Region III Region IV-A Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011 NCR
16.6 25.1 16.1

11.1 16.0 18.0 10.6 12.3 11.1 7.3 9.1 5.8 5.8 4.1 2.3 2.4 0.3
16.9 17.9 16.3
19.7 18.6 15.6
32
13.5 14.4 17.1 13.2 15.7 12.9 10.8 11.3 12.1 11.0 2.8 10.5 11.6 8.5 7.9 7.9 8.3 7.6 7.1 5.5 4.3 4.1 3.7 3.7 2.8 2.4 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 0.7 0.4

Caraga and ARMM consistently posted the highest poverty incidence among families in 2006 and 2009!
Region PHILIPPINES Poverty incidence among families 2003 2006 2009 20.0 21.1 20.9
Caraga ARMM Region IX

Region V Region VIII Region X Region VII Region XII Region IV-B Region XI Region VI Region I CAR Region II Region III Region IV-A Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011 NCR
37.6 25.0 40.5

38.0 30.2 32.4 32.1 27.2 29.8 25.4 23.5 17.8 16.1 15.2 9.4 9.2 2.1
36.9 36.5 34.2
39.8 38.1 36.6
33

Regions VII, V, and X continue to have the biggest share in the total number of food poor families!
Region PHILIPPINES
Magnitude of Food Poor Families 2003 2006 2009 1,357,833 1,511,579 1,453,843
% Share to Total Food Poor Families 2003 2006 2009 100.0 100.0 100.0
Region VII Region V Region X
194,352 169,869 118,924
220,692 158,936 128,513

110,071 117,655 108,585 101,484 75,221 80,522 69,957 81,692 62,166 66,775 61,863 26,850 25,245 15,354
181,649 137,527 131,304

124,547 122,893 115,298 96,969 92,803 90,305 75,585 62,151 58,468 54,839 48,686 26,792 24,625 9,400
14.3 12.8 8.8
14.6 10.5 8.5
12.5 9.5 9.0

8.6 8.5 7.9 6.7 6.4 6.2 5.2 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.3 1.8 1.7 0.6
34
Region VIII 83,573 Region IX 147,137 Region VI 114,929 Region XI 99,437 Caraga 69,100 Region XII 74,990 Region III 40,820 Region IV-B 55,517 Region IV-A 53,487 Region I 51,127 ARMM 36,952 Region II 23,790 CAR 16,151 Human Development Cluster Meeting NCR RAVirola/17 March 2011 7,677

Regions VII, V, and VI continue to have the biggest share in the total number poor families! Magnitude of Poor Families % Share to Total Poor Families Region 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 PHILIPPINES 3,293,096 3,670,791 3,855,730 100.0 100.0 100
Region VII Region V Region VI
389,818 358,981 298,058
432,870 364,318 302,836

253,347 257,640 210,830 228,741 224,378 220,707 203,000 194,626 163,783 193,392 186,838 96,311 80,828 56,346
415,303 385,338 345,703
11.8 10.9 9.1
11.8 9.9 8.2
10.8 10.0 9.0

7.4 7.1 6.4 6.3 6.3 5.9 5.8 5.7 4.9 4.6 4.2 2.4 1.7 1.4
35
Region VIII 227,458 Region X 239,874 Region IV-A 201,725 Region III 169,771 Region IX 237,898 Region XI 205,966 Region XII 192,545 ARMM 126,233 Caraga 156,221 Region I 156,261 Region IV-B 148,924 Region II 89,352 NCR 48,923 Human Development Cluster Meeting CAR 45,088 RAVirola/17 March 2011
287,156 6.9 6.9 275,433 7.3 7.0 248,179 6.1 5.7 244,273 5.2 6.2 242,285 7.2 6.1 226,284 6.3 6.0 224,882 5.8 5.5 218,043 3.8 5.3 187,278 4.7 4.5 179,179 4.7 5.3 162,609 4.5 5.1 94,433 2.7 2.6 64,404 1.5 2.2 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 54,949 1.4 1.5
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL
10 of 17 regions had decreasing subsistence incidence between 2006 and 2009, only 5 regions between 2003 and 2006!
Region Subsistence incidence among families 2003 2006 2009 Increase/Decrease 03-06 06-09
PHILIPPINES
Region VII ARMM Region V Region I Region XI CAR Region X Region IV-A
NCR Region II Region VI Region III Region XII Region IX Region VIII Human Development Cluster Meeting Caraga RAVirola/17 March 2011 Region IV-B
8.2
16.0 7.3 18.0 5.8 12.3 5.8 16.1 2.4
0.3 4.1 9.1 2.3 10.6 25.1 11.1 16.6 11.1
8.7
17.1 11.6 15.7 7.1 12.1 8.3 16.3 2.8
0.7 4.3 7.9 3.7 10.8 17.9 13.5 16.9 2.8
7.9
13.2 8.5 12.9 5.5 11.0 7.6 15.6 2.4 1.1 4.3 (2.2) 1.2 (0.2) 2.5 0.2 0.3
0.4
(0.8)
(3.8) (3.1) (2.9) (1.6) (1.1) (0.7) (0.6) (0.3)
36
0.4 0.3 (0.3) 4.1 0.3 (0.2) 7.9 (1.1) 0.9 3.7 1.4 1.0 11.3 0.2 1.7 18.6 (7.1) 1.7 14.4 2.4 2.1 19.7 0.3 2.4 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 10.5 (8.3) 3.0

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL
8 of 17 regions had decreasing poverty incidence between 2006 and 2009, only 5 regions between 2003 and 2006!
Region Poverty incidence among families 2003 2006 2009 Increase/Decrease 03-06 06-09
PHILIPPINES
Region IV-B Region VII Region I CAR Region II NCR Region XI Region V
Region III Region X Region IV-A Region XII ARMM Region VI Region VIII Human Development Cluster Meeting Region IX RAVirola/17 March 2011 Caraga
20.0
29.8 32.1 17.8 16.1 15.2 2.1 25.4 38.0
9.4 32.4 9.2 27.2 25.0 23.5 30.2 40.5 37.6
21.1
34.3 33.5 20.4 18.6 15.5 3.4 26.2 36.1
12.0 32.7 9.4 27.1 36.5 22.1 31.1 34.2 36.9
20.9
27.6 30.2 17.8 17.1 14.5 2.6 25.6 36.0 4.5 1.4 2.6 2.4 0.3 1.3 0.9 (1.9) (6.7) (3.2) (2.6) (1.5) (1.1) (0.8) (0.6) (0.1)
37
12.0 2.6 0.1 32.8 0.2 0.2 10.3 0.1 0.9 28.1 (0.1) 1.0 38.1 11.4 1.7 23.8 (1.4) 1.7 33.2 1.0 2.1 36.6 (6.3) 2.4 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 39.8 (0.7) 3.0

B. reductions in the number of food poor families from 2006 to 2009 were observed in Biggest REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Food Poor Families Regions VII, V and IV-B. On the other hand, largest increases were observed in Caraga, Regions VIII250,000 with 17,582, 14,476 and 9,783 increase in food poor families, respectively. and XII
-39,043
200,000
2003 2006 2009
-21,409
150,000
14,476 17,582 9,783
100,000
-19,541
50,000
I I I II M V X II III VI IX XI -B -A n ga XI VI M n VI n n n n IV IV io ra on on n R n io o o o o n g A g gi gi io io gi gi gi gi io Ca on on Re Re eg eg Re Re gi gi Re eg Re Re Re R R R Re Re CA R NC R
VII (08-09)
X 34
VIII 46
IX 49
VI 23
XI 14
Caraga 52
XII 16
CCT 17 38 RAVirola/17 March 39 2011
IV-A III IV-B I ARMM II CAR NCR NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 8 35 27 7 19 19 5 28

Biggest reductions in the number of poor families from 2006 to 2009 were observed in Regions IVB, VII and NCR. On the other hand, largest increases were observed in Regions VI, IV-A and VIII, with 42,867, 37,349 and 33,808 increase in poor families, respectively.
500,000
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Families
-17,567
450,000 400,000
2003 2006 2009
42,867
350,000
33,808
300,000 250,000
37,349 -24,229
200,000 150,000
-16,423
100,000 50,000 I VI V VI II VI X -A IV III IX XI I XI M ga M ra R A Ca I -B IV II R NC R CA
VII
VI
VIII
X 34
IV-A 7
III 35
IX 49
XI 14
XII
ARMM
Caraga
IV-B
II
NCR
CAR 28
CCT 17 39 RAVirola/17 March 39 2011 (08-09)
Human Development Cluster Meeting 23 46
16 NATIONAL STATISTICAL19 19 52 27 5 8 COORDINATION BOARD

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Food Poor Population
Biggest reductions in the number of food poor population from 2006 to 2009 were observed in Regions I, IV-B and NCR.
3,000,000
2003 2006
2,500,000
2009
264,651
2,000,000
166,500 263,315
1,500,000
-107,790 -141,498
1,000,000
-146,477
500,000
V I VI VI II VI X -A IV III M M R A IX I XI XI a ag ar C I -B IV II NC R R CA
V (08-09)
VII
VI 23
VIII 46
X 34
IV-A 7
III 35
ARMM 49
IX 14
CCT 17 40 RAVirola/17 March 39 2011
Caraga XII XI I IV-B II NCR CAR NATIONAL STATISTICAL19 COORDINATION BOARD 28 16 19 52 27 5 8

Biggest reductions in the number of poor population from 2006 to 2009 were observed in NCR, Regions IV-B and I. On the other hand, largest increases were observed in Regions VI, VIII and IVA, with 264,651, 263,315, and 166,550 increases in the poor population, respectively.
2,500,000
2003 2006
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Population
264,651
2,000,000
2009
166,550 263,315
1,500,000
-107,790 -141,498
1,000,000
-146,477
500,000
V I VI VI II VI X -A IV III M M R A IX I XI XI a ag ar C I -B IV II R NC R CA
VII
VI
VIII
IV-A 7
III 35
ARMM 19
IX 49
XII
XI
Caraga
IV-B
II
NCR
CAR
CCT 39 17 23 41 RAVirola/17 March 2011 (08-09)
Human Development Cluster Meeting 46 34
16 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 28 14 52 19 27 5 8

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL:
Batanes, the 4 districts of NCR, Benguet, Cavite, Bulacan, Laguna, Rizal, and Pampanga were consistently included in the least poor cluster of provinces in 2003, 2006, and 2009! New entrants in the least poor cluster of provinces in 2009 were Ilocos Norte, Bataan, and Nueva Vizcaya!
2003 Province Poverty incidence 1.1 2.6 2.6 1.8 8.1 6.3 4.4 4.3 4.8 14.3 5.2 3.2 90% CI Lower limit 0.4 1.7 1.7 1.1 5.1 6.3 1.7 2.9 3.4 7.9 3.5 1.8 3.5 1.9 Upper limit 1.7 3.4 3.5 2.4 11 6.3 7.1 5.7 6.2 20.6 6.9 4.6 6.3 3.9 Poverty incidence 3.1 3.8 3.7 2.9 7.2 0 3.6 5.1 4.2 11.3 4.5 5.8 3.8 2006 90% CI Lower limit 1.7 2.1 2.6 2 4 0 2.1 3.7 2.6 5.8 3 1.4 2.4 Upper limit 4.5 5.5 4.8 3.7 10.5 0 5 6.6 5.7 16.9 6 10.3 5.2 Poverty incidence 3.8 2.4 3.8 1.6 7.4 0 4 4.8 4.5 9.2 5.9 6.7 6.7 2009 90% CI Lower limit 2 1.6 2.5 0.7 4.8 0 2 3.7 3.1 6.1 4.1 2.9 4.9 Upper limit 5.6 3.2 5.1 2.5 10 0 6.1 5.9 5.9 12.3 7.6 10.5 8.4
1st District 2nd District 3rd District 4th District Bataan Batanes Benguet Bulacan Cavite Ilocos Norte Laguna Nueva Vizcaya
42
Pampanga 4.9 Human Development Cluster Meeting Rizal 2.9 RAVirola/17 March 2011
BOARD 8.7 2.7 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION4.2 1.6 3.7 6.5

Agusan del Sur, Bohol, Maguindanao, Masbate, Surigao del Norte and Zamboanga del Norte were consistently included in the bottom cluster of provinces in 2003, 2006, and 2009!
2003 Province 90% CI Poverty incidence 48.5 10.7 40.2 40.7 38.3 35.1 35.6 29.8 35.6 41.9 50.2 37 43.6 37.4 32.6 35.8 36.7 45.5 37.3 20.3 42.3 18.2 59.5 Cluster Meeting 43.3 Lower limit 41.3 3.4 33.8 28.6 32.5 31.5 26.7 20.5 27 34.4 42.3 30.6 35.6 27.9 24.9 27.9 28.4 27.4 28.1 13.4 35.2 8.1 51.4 33.3 Upper limit 55.6 18.0 46.7 52.9 44.1 38.7 44.4 39 44.1 49.5 58 43.4 51.5 47.0 40.3 43.7 45.1 63.5 46.5 27.1 49.4 28.2 67.5 53.2 Poverty incidence 45.5 37 43.7 30.4 36.6 37.8 39 37.6 34.3 44.9 42.9 38.2 44.4 43.3 40.6 40.6 34.0 25.8 38.7 36.7 41.6 49.1 54.1 34.1 2006 90% CI Lower limit 38.2 24.6 35.8 21.6 31 21.9 28 31.8 28.1 39 33.9 30.7 36.1 32.9 30.4 34.7 29.2 13.9 30.9 29.1 34.9 39.8 46.4 Upper limit 52.9 49.4 51.6 39.2 42.3 53.7 50.1 43.5 40.6 50.9 51.8 45.7 52.7 53.8 50.7 46.6 38.8 37.6 46.5 44.2 48.3 58.4 61.7 Poverty incidence 51.2 36.3 41.0 32.3 38.7 36.4 42.5 45.8 39 44.6 42.5 36.9 36.4 41.7 25.4 43 40.7 32.8 35.2 39.3 47.9 31.5 52.9 2009 90% CI Lower limit 43.5 23.2 33.6 25.3 33.8 25.9 36.4 37.6 31.9 37.7 36.6 29.7 29.5 32.4 18.3 36.3 34 21.3 28.8 33 43.1 22.2 46 Upper limit 58.9 49.4 48.4 39.2 43.6 46.8 48.6 54.1 46.1 51.6 48.3 44.1 43.2 51 32.4 49.8 47.3 44.3 41.7 45.5 52.8 40.8 59.8 50.9
Agusan del Sur Apayao Bohol Camarines Norte Camarines Sur Camiguin Davao Oriental Eastern Samar Lanao del Norte Maguindanao Masbate Misamis Occidental Negros Oriental Northern Samar Occidental Mindoro Romblon Saranggani Siquijor Sultan Kudarat Sulu Surigao Del Norte Tawi-tawi
43 Zamboanga Sibugay 2011 RAVirola/17 March
Zamboanga del Norte Human Development
NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION 35.4 BOARD 25.7 42.5 43.2

Cebu and Negros Occidental continue to have the biggest share in the total number of poor families!
Province PHILIPPINES Cebu Negros Occidental Camarines Sur Pangasinan Nueva Ecija Leyte Zamboanga del Norte Bohol Quezon Davao del Sur Negros Oriental Magnitude of Poor Families 2003 3,293,096 185,624 112,512 116,460 92,191 64,808 99,082 102,074 90,735 84,031 88,165 105,334 2006 3,670,791 211,406 130,077 119,747 128,396 94,026 104,260 101,511 104,032 101,394 89,452 112,585 2009 3,855,730 213,162 144,828 126,280 114,400 112,367 110,214 109,745 102,522 98,426 94,049 91,387 % Share to Total Poor Families 2003 100 5.6 3.4 3.5 2.8 2.0 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.7 3.2 2006 100 5.8 3.5 3.3 3.5 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.4 3.1 2009 100 5.5 3.8 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4
44

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Families
Negros Oriental, Tawi-Tawi and Pangasinan had the biggest reduction among poor families from 2006 to 2009!
140,000
-13,996
2003
120,000
-21,199
100,000
2006 2009
80,000
60,000
40,000
-14,978
20,000
n na si a ng N l ta en ri O is M l ta en ri O an w la Pa ro do in lM ue tiq n ta en id ro do in lM ic tr is D t s le ba m Za aw i -t w Ta i
Pa
os gr e
is m a
a nt ie r O
d 2n
cc O
Pangasinan
Negros Oriental
Misamis Oriental
Palawa n
Oriental Mindoro
Antique
Occidental Mindoro
2nd District
Zambales
Tawi-Tawi
7 45 CCT (08-09)March 2011 RAVirola/17
10
14
STATISTICAL 2 COORDINATION BOARD 5NATIONAL 9 2 1

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Population
Sulu, Lanao del Sur, and Iloilo were the provinces that have largest increases in the number of poor families from 2006-2009!
160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000
2003 2006 2009
19,972 24,945
60,000 40,000 20,000 al nt e id cc O ja ci E il o Il o h ut So C o at ab ot ao an L te or N l lu Su is am is M al nt de ci c O
18,957
os gr e
va ue N
de
ao an L
ur lS de
al iz R
ga an p am P
46 RAVirola/17 March 2011 CCT (08-09) 8
Negros Occidental
Nueva Ecija
Iloilo
South Cotabato
Lanao del Norte
Sulu
Misamis Occidental
Lanao del Sur
Rizal
Pampanga
11
15
NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 6 4 4 0 2

In terms of poverty incidence, most provinces with more than 40% of total families are poor were located in Visayas and Mindanao. However, in terms of magnitude of poor families, provinces with more than 100,000 were mostly located in Luzon and Visayas.
II. 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

Contiguous regions with high concentration of poor families could be prioritized in DSWDs poverty intervention programs.
Province
No. of Municipality with CCT 7 11 5 8 1 6 10 27
Pangasinan
Nueva Ecija
5.9% 3.3%
Camarines Sur
Pangasinan Nueva Ecija Camarines Sur Negros Occidental

Leyte Cebu
Bohol Cebu Leyte Zamboanga del Norte
Negros Occidental
14.9%
Bohol
2.8%
Zamboanga del Norte

Subsistence and poverty incidence among families in 2009 were notably high in Mindanao provinces.
Provinces with high poverty and subsistence incidences 1. Tawi-Tawi 2. Maguindanao 3. Sulu 4. Davao Oriental 5. Zamboanga del Norte 6. Agusan del Sur 7. Sultan Kudarat 8. Masbate 9. Negros Oriental 10.Northern Samar

In 2009, 8 (or 9%) out of 85 provinces/NCR districts with small magnitude of POOR families, were included in the CCT program.
No CCT in Eastern Samar in 20082009
In 2009, 23 (or 27%) out of 85 provinces/NCR districts with small magnitude of FOOD POOR families, were included in the CCT program.

Most of the provinces with high poverty incidence and low human development index in 2006 can be observed in Mindanao.

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Distribution of Provinces Across Clusters Based on CI of the 2009 Poverty Incidence Among Families
# of Total Population Percent Cluster provinces in 2009 Distribution 1 15 13.0 12,008,400 2 23 13,564,900 14.7 3 24 32,188,900 34.9 4 9 8,073,200 8.8 5 14 28.6 26,391,200

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Distribution of Provinces Across Clusters Based on CI of the 2003, 2006 and 2009 Poverty Incidence Among Families
Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
Number of Provinces 2003 10 28 22 12 13 85 2006 19 30 20 5 11 85 2009 15 23 24 9 14 85
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics In NCR, the average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rose faster than prices of food and all items!
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Thres hold Subs istence Incidence (among fam ilies) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among fam ilies) Inflation (all items ) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile clas s Third decile class Fourth Decile clas s Fifth Decile clas s Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile clas s Ninth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting Tenth Decile class RAVirola/17 March 2011 NCR 2003 9,776 0.3 108.5 13,997 2.1 114.5 2006 11,515 0.7 127.8 16,487 3.4 140.7 2009 13,831 0.4 153.5 19,802 2.6 156.9 % change 03-06 06-09 17.8 20.1 0.4 17.8 17.8 1.3 22.9 (0.3) 20.1 20.1 (0.8) 11.5
57,683 16,132 23,567 29,031 34,145 40,100 48,199 58,124 74,030 102,336 235,805
66,106
77,462
14.6
17.2
55
17,496 21,714 8.5 24.1 26,395 31,097 12.0 17.8 33,051 39,112 13.8 18.3 40,037 47,069 17.3 17.6 47,945 56,273 19.6 17.4 57,777 67,964 19.9 17.6 71,696 83,226 23.4 16.1 92,717 107,377 25.2 15.8 127,839 145,456 24.9 13.8 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 263,928 309,122 11.9 17.1
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics In CAR, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st and 2nd decile classes rose faster than prices of food and all items!
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subs istence Incidence (among fam ilies) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among fam ilies) Inflation (all items ) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile clas s Fifth Decile clas s Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile clas s Human DevelopmentNinth Decile class Cluster Meeting Tenth Decile class RAVirola/17 March 2011 CAR 2003 7,636 5.8 106.8 10,881 16.1 115.2 2006 9,001 8.3 128.4 12,976 18.6 140.0 2009 11,249 7.6 158.4 16,122 17.1 160.9 % change 03-06 06-09 17.9 25.0 2.5 20.2 19.3 2.4 21.5 (0.7) 23.4 24.3 (1.5) 14.9
31,260 6,948 10,428 13,813 17,051 21,730 27,309 34,611 45,200 64,530 122,662
39,989
46,694
27.9
16.8
56
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics In Region I, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st and 2nd decile class rose faster than prices of food and all items!
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Ninth Decile class Tenth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting Region I 2003 8,269 5.8 111.1 11,791 17.8 112.9 2006 10,016 7.1 135.3 14,350 20.4 139.4 2009 12,389 5.5 167.4 17,768 17.8 161.3 % change 03-06 06-09 21.1 23.7 1.2 21.8 21.7 2.6 23.5 (1.6) 23.7 23.8 (2.6) 15.7
26,080 7,491 10,851 13,383 15,962 18,808 22,482 27,513 35,132 48,488 96,014
29,966 8,815 12,823 15,762 18,392 21,803 25,969 31,870 40,380 54,992 109,900
40,239 11,447 16,738 20,196 23,804 28,077 33,698 41,487 51,577 70,526 162,162
14.9 17.7 18.2 17.8 15.2 15.9 15.5 15.8 14.9 13.4 14.5
34.3 29.9 30.5 28.1 29.4 28.8 29.8 30.2 27.7 28.2 47.6

In Region II, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st and 2nd decile classes rose faster than prices of food and all items!
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Ninth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class Region II 2009 10,685 4.1 165.3 15,306 14.5 157.8 40,791 2003 7,205 4.1 111.6 10,350 15.2 112.2 27,035 7,285 10,266 12,603 14,928 17,623 20,836 25,500 32,835 46,852 114,341 2006 8,527 4.3 132.0 12,212 15.5 132.8 30,846 % change 03-06 06-09 18.3 25.3 0.3 18.3 18.0 0.3 18.4 14.1 (0.2) 25.2 25.3 (1.1) 18.8 32.2
58
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics In Region III, prices of food and all items rose faster that the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st and 2nd decile classes!
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among fam ilies) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among fam ilies) Inflation (all item s) Mean per capita income All incom e groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Ninth Decile class Tenth Decile Human Development Cluster Meeting class Region III 2003 8,902 2.3 107.9 12,771 9.4 111.3 2006 10,719 3.7 129.7 15,374 12.0 134.1 2009 13,308 3.7 159.7 18,981 12.0 158.8 % change 03-06 06-09 20.4 24.2 1.4 20.2 20.4 2.6 20.5 0.1 23.1 23.5 0.1 18.4
32,719 10,175 14,800 18,204 21,756 25,798 30,457 36,237 45,065 59,496 106,362
40,595
46,944
24.1
15.6
11,233 13,785 10.4 22.7 16,424 20,397 11.0 24.2 20,568 25,561 13.0 24.3 24,910 30,367 14.5 21.9 29,597 35,909 14.7 21.3 35,435 42,157 16.3 19.0 42,940 51,057 18.5 18.9 53,747 63,562 19.3 18.3 72,496 84,940 21.8 17.2 145,897 156,146 37.2 7.0 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

In Region IVA, the average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rose faster than prices of food, while the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 2nd decile classes rose slower than prices of all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subs istence Incidence (among fam ilies) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among fam ilies) Inflation (all items ) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile clas s Fifth Decile clas s Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile clas s Ninth Decile class Tenth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting Region IV-A 2003 8,539 2.4 108.1 12,394 9.2 114.7 2006 9,901 2.8 2009 12,278 2.4 % change 03-06 06-09 15.9 24.0 0.3 16.1 15.2 0.1 19.8 (0.3) 23.4 24.5 0.9 14.3
125.5
14,284 9.4
154.9
17,779 10.3
137.4
157.1
39,629 9,742 14,818 19,086 23,620 28,777 34,835 42,639 53,753 73,409 149,106
45,276 11,021 17,102 22,097 27,220 33,056 39,528 48,170 60,993 82,366 160,931
53,029 13,789 20,486 25,699 31,425 38,025 46,116 56,218 71,644 96,221 202,748
14.2 13.1 15.4 15.8 15.2 14.9 13.5 13.0 13.5 12.2 7.9
17.1 25.1 19.8 16.3 15.4 15.0 16.7 16.7 17.5 16.8 26.0

In Region IVB, the average per capita income of the bottom 30% of families rose faster than prices of food and all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) P overty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Ninth Decile class Tenth Decile class Region IV-B 2003 7,270 1 .1 1 1 09.5 10,398 29.8 1 2.5 1 20,1 07 5,506 7,884 9,558 1 ,422 1 1 3,521 1 6,060 1 9,571 25,347 35,758 91 ,636 2006 8,870 2.8 1 .6 31 12,610 34.3 1 33.0 21 ,631 6,049 8,755 10,536 1 2,665 1 92 5,1 1 8,255 22,1 72 27,861 39,545 89,490 2009 10,978 1 0.5 1 63.1 15,769 27.6 1 56.3 29,727 8,488 12,342 14,969 1 7,588 20,823 24,924 30,386 39,1 61 55,363 1 23,781 % change 03-06 06-09 22.0 23.8 (8.3) 7.8 20.2 23.9 21.3 25.0 4.5 1 8.2 7.6 9.9 11.0 10.2 1 0.9 1 2.4 1 3.7 1 3.3 9.9 1 0.6 (2.3) (6.7) 1 7.5 37.4 40.3 41.0 42.1 38.9 37.1 36.5 37.0 40.6 40.0 38.3

In Region V, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 5th decile classes rose faster than prices of food and all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Human DevelopmentNinth Decile class Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class Region V 2003 7,995 18.0 109.2 11,476 38.0 112.9 20,911 5,128 7,328 9,095 11,106 13,213 15,712 19,484 25,539 37,886 95,367 2006 9,514 15.7 129.7 13,645 36.1 135.7 24,766 2009 11,983 12.9 162.8 17,146 36.0 160.6 30,264 % change 03-06 06-09 19.0 26.0 (2.2) 18.8 18.9 (1.9) 20.2 18.4 (2.9) 25.5 25.7 (0.1) 18.3 22.2
62

In Region VI, the average per capita income of the bottom 30% of families rose slower than prices of food and all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Ninth Meeting Human Development Cluster Decile class RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class Region VI 2003 7,374 9.1 107.8 10,548 23.5 113.6 23,489 5,929 8,713 10,814 12,990 15,461 18,576 22,787 29,460 42,704 98,435 2006 8,659 7.9 127.6 12,432 22.1 134.1 27,635 2009 11,254 7.9 164.2 16,036 23.8 160.4 34,147 % change 03-06 06-09 17.4 30.0 (1.1) 18.4 17.9 (1.4) 18.0 17.6 0.0 28.7 29.0 1.7 19.6 23.6
63

In Region VII, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 4th decile classes rose faster than prices of food and all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Ninth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class Region VII 2003 8,150 16.0 117.9 11,798 32.1 119.7 24,730 4,957 7,860 10,163 12,557 15,510 19,196 24,022 32,069 46,777 101,891 2006 10,069 17.1 143.9 14,468 33.5 142.6 29,189 2009 12,410 13.2 176.4 17,848 30.2 166.0 37,850 % change 03-06 06-09 23.5 23.2 1.1 22.1 22.6 1.4 19.1 18.0 (3.8) 22.6 23.4 (3.2) 16.4 29.7
64

In Region VIII, the average per capita income of the bottom 10% rose faster than prices of food, while the average per capita income of families belonging to 1st to 4th decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting class Ninth Decile RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class Region VIII 2003 6,884 11.1 109.5 9,850 30.2 112.0 20,795 5,461 7,505 9,067 10,621 12,515 14,941 18,282 23,901 36,145 100,044 2006 8,317 13.5 132.0 11,885 31.1 133.1 25,042 2009 11,126 14.4 176.2 15,910 33.2 164.3 33,157 % change 03-06 06-09 20.8 33.8 2.4 20.5 20.7 1.0 18.8 20.4 0.9 33.5 33.9 2.1 23.4 32.4
65
5,989 8,063 9.7 34.6 8,585 11,290 14.4 31.5 10,667 13,762 17.6 29.0 12,665 16,269 19.2 28.5 14,971 19,299 19.6 28.9 18,131 22,867 21.3 26.1 22,391 28,804 22.5 28.6 29,269 37,353 22.5 27.6 46,263 28.0 28.5 NATIONAL59,470 STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 112,835 165,382 12.8 46.6

In Region IX, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 2nd decile classes rose faster than prices of food, while the average per capita income of families belonging to 1st to 4th decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting class Ninth Decile RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class Region IX 2009 10,587 18.6 169.8 15,160 36.6 163.4 30,181 2003 6,744 25.1 108.1 9,642 40.5 110.1 19,469 3,365 5,243 6,667 8,596 10,564 13,114 16,829 22,574 35,834 89,020 2006 8,226 17.9 132.3 11,810 34.2 134.3 25,515 % change 03-06 06-09 22.0 28.7 (7.1) 22.4 22.5 (6.3) 22.0 31.1 0.6 28.3 28.4 2.4 21.7 18.3
66
4,772 6,799 41.8 42.5 7,315 9,689 39.5 32.5 9,554 12,255 43.3 28.3 11,663 14,792 35.7 26.8 14,099 17,952 33.5 27.3 17,316 22,072 32.0 27.5 22,427 27,793 33.3 23.9 31,532 36,319 39.7 15.2 48,067 55,331 34.1 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION 15.1 BOARD 111,832 141,819 25.6 26.8

In Region X, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 2nd decile classes rose faster than prices of food, while the average per capita income of families belonging to 1st to 4th decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting class Ninth Decile RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class Region X 2003 7,312 16.1 109.5 10,501 32.4 113.6 22,212 4,722 7,072 9,004 11,050 13,399 16,094 20,272 27,782 42,700 95,330 2006 9,080 16.3 135.1 12,987 32.7 139.3 28,460 2009 11,543 15.6 172.3 16,568 32.8 168.0 34,500 % change 03-06 06-09 24.2 27.1 0.2 23.4 23.7 0.3 22.6 28.1 (0.6) 27.5 27.6 0.1 20.6 21.2
67
5,953 7,619 26.1 28.0 8,719 11,267 23.3 29.2 10,996 14,295 22.1 30.0 13,667 17,368 23.7 27.1 16,770 20,855 25.2 24.4 20,387 25,949 26.7 27.3 26,449 33,162 30.5 25.4 37,104 44,265 33.6 19.3 54,973 28.7 19.5 NATIONAL65,677 STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 126,361 144,022 32.6 14.0
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics In Region XI, the average per capita income of the bottom 30% of families rose faster than the prices of food and all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting class Ninth Decile RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class Region XI 2003 7,493 12.3 109.0 10,737 25.4 112.8 23,846 5,383 8,132 10,539 12,857 15,728 19,076 23,434 30,154 42,165 100,919 2006 9,392 12.1 136.5 13,469 26.2 140.7 28,037 2009 11,879 11.0 173.3 17,040 25.6 167.0 35,835 % change 03-06 06-09 25.4 26.5 (0.2) 25.2 25.4 0.9 24.7 17.6 (1.1) 27.0 26.5 (0.6) 18.7 27.8
68
7,094 8,977 31.8 26.6 10,199 13,361 25.4 31.0 13,144 16,969 24.7 29.1 16,051 20,530 24.8 27.9 19,510 24,773 24.1 27.0 23,731 30,074 24.4 26.7 29,369 36,479 25.3 24.2 37,522 46,917 24.4 25.0 52,730 66,657 25.1 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION 26.4 BOARD 103,021 147,614 2.1 43.3

In Region XII, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 2nd decile classes did not increase as fast as the increase in the prices of food, while the average per capita income of families belonging to 2nd to 3rd decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile Human Development Cluster Meeting class RAVirola/17 March 2011 Ninth Decile class Tenth Decile class Region XII 2003 7,154 10.6 108.4 10,277 27.2 111.3 24,272 5,563 8,001 9,846 11,916 14,184 17,098 21,011 26,564 37,855 123,390 2006 8,757 10.8 132.2 12,530 27.1 133.4 24,281 2009 11,014 11.3 166.3 15,762 28.1 160.2 32,975 % change 03-06 06-09 22.4 25.8 0.2 22.0 21.9 (0.1) 19.9 0.0 0.5 25.8 25.8 1.0 20.1 35.8
69
6,939 8,327 24.7 20.0 9,652 12,093 20.6 25.3 11,996 14,730 21.8 22.8 14,415 17,739 21.0 23.1 17,016 21,287 20.0 25.1 20,336 25,750 18.9 26.6 24,617 31,600 17.2 28.4 31,337 40,723 18.0 30.0 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 44,275 60,265 17.0 36.1 96,152 146,630 (22.1) 52.5

In CARAGA, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 2nd decile classes did not increase as fast as the increase in the prices of food, while the average per capita income of families belonging to 3rd to 4th decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting class Ninth Decile RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class CARAGA 2009 11,863 19.7 177.5 16,858 39.8 168.8 29,526 2003 7,291 16.6 108.9 10,355 37.6 112.1 17,574 4,816 6,789 8,335 9,847 11,462 13,543 17,053 22,283 33,451 67,613 2006 9,099 16.9 136.0 12,935 36.9 137.4 22,821 % change 03-06 06-09 24.8 30.4 0.3 24.9 24.9 (0.7) 22.6 29.9 2.8 30.5 30.3 2.9 22.9 29.4
70

In ARMM, the average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rose faster than the prices of food, while the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 4th decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.
Statistics/ Income decile class Food Threshold Subsistence Incidence (among families) Inflation (food) Poverty Threshold Poverty Incidence (among families) Inflation (all items) Mean per capita income All income groups First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Seventh Decile class Eighth Decile class Human Development Cluster Meeting Ninth Decile class RAVirola/17 March 2011 Tenth Decile class ARMM 2003 6,809 7.3 111.7 9,664 25.0 114.7 16,371 5,874 7,987 9,549 10,998 12,371 14,288 16,532 20,108 26,935 54,428 2006 8,699 11.6 143.9 12,358 36.5 144.6 16,809 2009 11,291 8.5 190.6 16,334 38.1 180.3 21,273 % change 03-06 06-09 27.8 29.8 4.3 28.8 27.9 11.4 26.1 2.7 (3.1) 32.5 32.2 1.7 24.7 26.6
71
6,988 9,643 19.0 38.0 9,054 12,636 13.4 39.6 10,624 14,213 11.3 33.8 12,090 15,985 9.9 32.2 13,491 17,628 9.1 30.7 15,132 19,582 5.9 29.4 17,128 21,697 3.6 26.7 19,955 24,940 (0.8) 25.0 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 24,768 31,429 (8.0) 26.9 53,019 63,054 (2.6) 18.9
Some positive events between 2006 and 2009:

Period July 2009 Event Increase in the salaries of government employees with the implementation of the 1st of four parts of the Salary Standardization Law III. Conditional cash transfer (CCT) implemented in 161 municipalities in 2008 41.6% in Luzon, 14.9% in Visayas, and 43.5% in Mindanao. CCT was implemented in 277 municipalities 36.5% in Luzon, 22.4% in Visayas, and 41.1% in Mindanao.
2008
2009
Start of application for the Project on Nurses Assigned in Rural Service by the DOLE, DOH, and the Professional Regulation Commission, Board of Nursing (PRC-BON). The Project involved the training/deployment of unemployed registered nurses in Human Development Cluster Meeting 1,000 poorest cities/municipalities of the country. the NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 72 RAVirola/17 March 2011
February 2009
Some negative events between 2006 and 2009: Period 2006-2009 Event Rice price crisis: Price of ordinary rice increased by 44.2%, from PhP 21.28/kg in 2006 to PhP 30.69 in 2009 Global financial crisis Start of El Nio Start of the increase in alert level of Mayon Volcano
2008 June 2009 July 2009
Some negative events between 2006 and 2009:

Some typhoons/calamities in 2009
Typhoon/Calamity 1. Pepeng 2. Ondoy 3. Ramil Period Covered Sept. 24 - 27, 2009 Sept. 30 Oct. 11, 2009 Oct. 20-26, 2009 Estimated Cost of Damage PhP 27.195 billion PhP 11.121 billion PhP 87 million in Cagayan Valley Area(s) affected NCR, CAR, I, II, III, IV-A, IV-B, V, IX NCR, CAR, I, II, III, IV-A, IV-B, V, IX CAR, Regions I and II
With the latest 2009 poverty estimates, the probability of halving poverty, between 1990 and 2015, has gone down but remains at medium!
Indicator Poverty incidence among population
Pace of Progress
Target 16.6
1991 33.1
2003
2006
2009
24.9 (Baseline) 0.99
26.4 0.65
26.5 0.53
Notes: The pace of progress is computed as the ratio of the actual annual growth rate and required annual growth rate. High: Pace of Progress is greater than 0.9 Medium: Pace of Progress between 0.5 and 0.9 Low: Pace of Progress is less than 0.5

MDG Performance and Targets on MDG1, Target 1, Indicator 1
Actual
Poverty Incidence among population Percentage point decrease
Target (given the present performance)

Poverty Incidence among population Percentage point decrease
1991 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
33.1 24.9 26.4 26.5
Annual reduction of 0.37 percentage points, between 1991-2009, from a baseline of 33.1
0.69 annually, between 19912015, from a baseline of 33.1 20.7 18.6 1.65 annually, between 20092015, from a 16.6 baseline of 26.5 Target poverty incidence
76
Target reduction in poor population Population Annual Cumulative 2010 1,598,224 25.05 2011 1,628,372 3,226,597 23.35 2012 1,658,671 4,885,268 21.65 2013 1,689,113 6,574,381 19.95 2014 1,719,689 8,294,071 18.25 Human Development Cluster Meeting NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 2015 1,750,410 10,044,481 16.55 RAVirola/17 March 2011
II. Highlights of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics As of 2009, the Philippines was eight years behind target on poverty reduction! Only NCR, CAR, Regions II and IV-A are ahead of their targets!
10.0 5.0 5.0 0.5 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 -15.0 -20.0
NC R CA R ion IV -A IV -B VI II es VI I n n n n pin g io n n gi o gi o ion gio gio g io n gio Re n XI I VI XI I II II V X I
3.2 0.5
-2.3 -8.4
-3.8 -8.3 -9.6
-5.6 -8.3 -10.2 -14.1 -12.0
-4.0
Re g
i li p
Re
gio
g io
gi o
Re g
Re
Re
Re
Re
Ph
Re
Notes: Time-distance (years): positive (+) time lead (progress is ahead the path to target) Negative ( - ) time lag (Progress is behind the path to target) The time distance is a new generic statistical measure for analysis and visualization of time series data. This was first developed by Prof. Pavle Sicherl of the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
77
Region IX, Caraga, and ARMM are 27, 21, and 81 years behind the target in 2009. Human Development Cluster Meeting NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD RAVirola/17 March 2011
Re
Re
Re

In terms of poverty incidence among population in ASEAN countries, the Philippines is better off than Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Cambodia; but behind Vietnam (14.5%) and Indonesia (14.2%).
Country Poverty Incidence Among Popn. Year
Lao PDR Myanmar Cambodia Philippines Vietnam Indonesia Thailand Malaysia Brunei Darussalam Singapore
33.5 32.0 30.1 26.5 14.5 14.2 8.5 3.6
2003 2005 2007 2009 2008 2009 2008 2007
Note: Brunei Darussalam is a regional member of ADB, but is not classified as a developing member country. Sources: Millennium Indicators Database Online (UNSD 2010), Pacific Regional Information System (SPC 2010), country sources. (http://www.adb.org/documents/books/key_indicators/2010/pdf/Key-Indicators-2010.pdf )

In terms of the Human Development Index (HDI) in ASEAN countries, the Philippines is categorized in countries with medium human development together with Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Cambodia.
HDI Rank out of HDI Countries 2005 VERY HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 1. Singapore 2. Brunei Darussalam HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 3. Malaysia MEDIUM HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 4. Thailand 5. Philippines 6. Indonesia 7. Viet Nam 8. Lao People's Democratic Republic 9. Cambodia LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 0.631 0.619 0.561 0.540 0.460 0.466 0.648 0.635 0.593 0.566 0.490 0.489 0.654 0.638 0.600 0.572 0.497 0.494 93 95 110 114 126 123 92 96 110 113 123 124 92 97 108 113 122 124 1 -2 2 1 4 1 0 -1 2 0 1 0 4 5 6 7 9 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.726 0.739 0.744 55 58 57 -2 1 3 3 3 0.826 0.801 0.841 0.804 0.846 0.805 28 32 27 36 27 37 1 -5 0 -1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2009 2010 169 countries 2005 2009 2010 HDI rank Change 20052010 20092010 HDI Rank out of 10 ASEAN member countries 2005 2009 2010
10. Myanmar Human Development Cluster Meeting
0.406
0.444
0.451
138
132 132 6 0 10 10 10 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD
III. Some Policy/Program Implications

A. Poverty and Unemployment/Underemployment: Need for quality employment
Proportion of poor families declined from 21.1 in 2006 to 20.9 in 2009, consistent with the declining trend in underemployment rate and unemployment rate, which went down from 22.6 to 19.1 and 8.0 to 7.5, respectively from 2006 to 2009!
25 22.6
-0.2
20
20.9 21.1
21.03 19.3 19.1 18.7
Unemplo yment Rate
15
Underemplo yment Rate P o verty Incidence amo ng families
10
8.0 5
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.3
80
2006 Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011
2007
2008
2009
2010

B. Poverty and Minimum Wage-Setting: Need for more poverty-sensitive minimum wage
REGIONAL (FOR Caraga): A minimum wage earner* in Caraga can support a family of at most four members in 2009, to be classified as non-poor! However, average family size in Caraga is 5. Minimum wage should have been at least PhP270/day in 2009 in order to support a family of 5 members. For 2011, it should be at least PhP290/day. This means that the minimum wage as of 2010 of Php233 for agriculture and Php243 for non-agriculture should be increased by Php57 and Php47 or 24.5% and 19.3%, respectively, to support a family of five members.
Family size Required monthly income (in PhP) 1,405 2,810 4,215 5,620 7,025 8,430 9,835 11,240 Monthly Income of a Minimum Wage Earner in 2009 Non-agriculture (PhP 233/day) 6,058 6,058 6,058 6,058 6,058 6,058 6,058 6,058 Agriculture (PhP 223/day) 5,798 5,798 5,798 5,798 5,798 5,798 5,798 5,798
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Minimum wage earner in Caraga employed in the agriculture and non-agriculture sector. Rate is effective 20 June 2008, per Wage order No. 9 (Source of data: http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_wage%20rates1989-present_non-agri.html ) For this exercise, number of working days considered 81 RAVirola/17 March 2011 Gross family income was used.
in a month is 26. STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD NATIONAL

REGIONAL (FOR ARMM): A minimum wage earner* in ARMM can support a family of at most four members in 2009, to be classified as non-poor! However, average family size in ARMM is 5. Minimum wage should have been at least PhP262/day in 2009 in order to support a family of 5 members. For 2011, it should be at least PhP286/day. This means that the minimum wage as of 2010 of Php222 for agriculture and non-agriculture should be increased by Php64.00 or 28.8% to support a family of five members.
Family size Required monthly income (in PhP) 1,361 2,722 4,083 5,444 6,805 8,166 9,527 10,888 Monthly Income of a Minimum Wage Earner in 2009 Non-agriculture (PhP 210/day) 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 Agriculture (PhP 210/day) 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Minimum wage earner in ARMM employed in the agriculture and non-agriculture sector. Rate is effective 29 June 2008, per Wage order No. 11 (Source of data: http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_wage%20rates1989-present_non-agri.html )
82 RAVirola/17For this exercise, number of working days considered March 2011

Gross family income was used.
in a month is 26. STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD NATIONAL

REGIONAL (FOR Region IX): A minimum wage earner* in Region IX can support a family of at most four members in 2009, to be classified as non-poor! However, average family size in Region IX is 5. Minimum wage should have been at least PhP243/day in 2009 in order to support a family of 5 members. For 2011, it should be at least PhP259/day. This means that the minimum wage as of 2010 of Php230 for agriculture and PHP255 for non-agriculture should be increased by Php29 and Php4 or 12.6% and 1.6%, respectively, to support a family of five members .
Family size Required monthly income (in PhP) Monthly Income of a Minimum Wage Earner in 2009 Non-agriculture (PhP 240/day) Agriculture (PhP 215/day)
1 2 3
1,263 2,526 3,789
6,240 6,240 6,240
5,590 5,590 5,590
4
5 6 7 8
5,052
6,315 7,578 8,841 10,104
6,240
6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240
5,590
5,590 5,590 5,590 5,590
Minimum wage earner in Region IX employed in the non-agriculture sector. Rate is effective 3 July 2008, per Wage order No. 15 (Source of data: http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_wage%20rates1989-present_non-agri.html )
83 RAVirola/17 March 2011 income was used. Gross family
For this Cluster Meeting Human Developmentexercise, number of working days considered in a month is 26.
III. Some Policy/Program Implication

C. Poverty and Economic Growth: Need for better income distribution, inclusive growth
Region Poverty Gross Regional Domestic Incidence Product (in thousand Inc/Dec Inc/Dec Among Families pesos) constant (%) 2006 2009 06-09 2006 2009 06-09 1,276,155,599 1,432,115,499 414,437,924 465,688,965 28,396,925 31,547,310 38,172,734 40,737,475 25,523,961 28,157,464 107,039,140 115,947,511 156,688,378 165,572,379 34,292,906 39,105,919 35,394,007 42,877,886 91,865,954 109,252,408 90,297,893 102,052,820 28,093,607 30,482,024 32,676,015 38,196,714 62,729,335 73,206,779 57,877,947 67,366,644 44,740,935 11,290,530 16,637,408 50,556,259 12,409,350 18,957,590 12.2 12.4 11.1 6.7 10.3 8.3 5.7 21.1 3.4 18.6 20.4 15.5 12.0 9.4 34.3 36.1 22.1 33.5 31.1 34.2 32.7 26.2 27.1 36.9 36.5 20.9 2.6 17.1 17.8 14.5 12.0 10.3 27.6 36.0 23.8 30.2 33.2 36.6 32.8 25.6 28.1 39.8 38.1 (0.2) (0.8) (1.5) (2.6) (1.1) 0.1 0.9
PHILIPPINES NCR CAR Region I Region II Region III Region IV-A
The increase in economic growth between 2006 and 2009 in Region IVB is well distributed across all income decile class. Poverty incidence decreased by 6.7% between 2006 and 2009.
Statistics/ Income decile class M ean per capita income A income groups ll First decile class Second decile class Third decile class Fourth Decile class Fifth Decile class Sixth Decile class Sev enth Decile class Eighth Decile class Ninth Decile class Tenth Decile class
Region IVB
2009
2006
%change 06-09 37.4
21,631 6,049 8,755 10,536 12,665 15,192 18,255 22,172 27,861 39,545 89,490
29,727 8,488 12,342 14,969 17,588 20,823 24,924 30,386 39,161 55,363 123,781
40.3 41.0 42.1 38.9 37.1 36.5 37.0 40.6 40.0 38.3
Region IV-B
Region V Region VI Region VII Region VIII Region IX Region X Region XI
14.0
21.1 18.9 13.0 8.5 16.9 16.7 16.4
(6.7)
(0.1) 1.7 (3.2) 2.1 2.4 0.2 (0.6)
Region XII
Caraga ARMM
13.0
9.9 13.9
1.0
3.0 1.7
In contrast, in Region XII, the %change 2006 2009 06-09 increase in M ean per capita income economic A income groups ll 24,281 32,975 35.8 growth is First decile class 6,939 8,327 20.0 concentrated Second decile class 9,652 12,093 25.3 in the upper Third decile class 11,996 14,730 22.8 Fourth Decile class 14,415 17,739 23.1 income decile Fifth Decile class 17,016 21,287 25.1 classes. Sixth Decile class 20,336 25,750 26.6 Poverty Sev enth Decile class 24,617 31,600 28.4 Eighth Decile class 31,337 40,723 30.0 incidence also Ninth Decile class 44,275 60,265 36.1 increased by Tenth Decile class 96,152 146,630 52.5 1.0% between NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD 2009. 2006 and
Statistics/ Income decile class
Region XII

D. Family Economic Profile: Need for closer monitoring in critical areas
The Human Resource Department may be able to actually compute for poverty incidence in the company using the following:
Percentage of Employees Below the Regional Poverty Line (NCR) by Family Size, 2009
Number/Percentage of employees not satisfying the minimum monthly family income
Family Size
Required Monthly Family Income 1,650 3,300 4,950 6,601 8,251 9,901 11,551 13,209
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Poverty Incidence for the company:
______%
This can also be done by the Local Government Units(LGUs).

E. Poverty and Population
Average Family Size
All 2009 4.74
Food Poor 6.48
Poor 5.99
Non-Poor 4.38
III. Some Policy/Program Implication 10 provinces from the Least Poor Cluster have higher primary cohort survival rate than the provinces in the Bottom Poor Cluster except for Lanao del Norte!
Poverty Incidence and Primary Cohort Survival Rate Province
Bulacan Pampanga 1st District Laguna Bataan Lanao del Norte 2nd District Nueva Vizcaya Cavite Benguet Rizal Eastern Samar Ilocos Norte Surigao Del Norte
Contd Province
Camarines Sur Agusan del Sur 3rd District 4th District Northern Samar Sulu Batanes Zamboanga del Norte Maguindanao Bohol Romblon Saranggani Zamboanga Sibugay Davao Oriental
Poverty Incidence
4.8 6.7 3.8 5.9 7.4 39.0 2.4 6.7 4.5 4.0 6.5 45.8 9.2 47.9
Cohort Survival Rate

93.0 88.3 86.3 86.1 79.2 76.7 74.3 73.4 72.6 71.4 70.8 68.8 67.6 67.0 66.3
Poverty Incidence
38.7 51.2 3.8 1.6 41.7 39.3 0.0 52.9 44.6 41.0 43.0 40.7 43.2 42.5
Cohort Survival Rate

66.2 66.0 60.8 60.5 59.2 59.1 58.6 57.6 57.5 55.8 53.6 53.1 47.9 30.3
Masbate 42.5 Human Development Cluster Meeting
III. Some Policy/Program Implication 10 provinces from the Least Poor Cluster have higher Primary Completion Rate than the provinces in the Bottom Poor Cluster except for Lanao del Norte!
Poverty Incidence and Primary Completion Rate Province
Bulacan Pampanga Laguna 1st District Bataan Lanao del Norte 2nd District Nueva Vizcaya Cavite Benguet Rizal Eastern Samar Ilocos Norte Camarines Sur
Contd Province
Masbate Agusan del Sur 3rd District 4th District Batanes Northern Samar Zamboanga del Norte Sulu Maguindanao Bohol Saranggani Zamboanga Sibugay Romblon Davao Oriental
Poverty Incidence
4.8 6.7 5.9 3.8 7.4 39.0 2.4 6.7 4.5 4.0 6.5 45.8 9.2 38.7
Completion Rate
93.0 88.5 87.6 85.9 78.5 74.3 73.8 72.8 72.3 71.1 70.5 68.7 67.0 66.3 65.8
Poverty Incidence
42.5 51.2 3.8 1.6 0.0 41.7 52.9 39.3 44.6 41.0 40.7 43.2 43.0 42.5
Completion Rate
65.7 64.8 60.0 59.8 58.5 58.4 57.2 57.2 56.2 54.7 52.1 46.1 46.0 29.4
SurigaoDevelopment Cluster Meeting 47.9 Human Del Norte

D. Challenges
Magnitude of poor families Using old methodology 2006 2009 4.7 million 4.9 million Using refined methodology 3.7 million 3.9 million Difference 1 million 1 million
Used in the NHTSPR
Challenge: What to do with CCT beneficiaries who are not poor?

D. Challenges
Greater collaboration between the DSWD and NSCB on the: Maximization of the wealth of information on poverty indicators from the NHTSPR, which could be utilized by the Philippine Statistical System, to provide a more holistic picture of the poverty situation in the country.
DSWD can consider the food threshold as possible reference to compute for standard per capita costs of food requirements in DSWD (day care/children) centers but food threshold must be recomputed for children. (Note: As pointed out by a DSWD representative during the NSCB presentation to the DSWD Technical Staff on the 2009 Poverty Statistics last 8 March 2011.)

D. Challenges CCT support is not enough!
Family Size Monthly Income Shortfall (Based on Income Gap) Monthly CCT Contribution
1 2 3* 4* 5*
361 721 1,082 1,443 1,803 800 1,100 1,400
Note: 1) 4Ps provides conditional cash grants to beneficiaries with: a) b) PhP 500.00/month per household for health and nutrition expenses PhP 300/month per child for educational expenses
2) Assume that all cash grant beneficiaries complied in the given conditions a) Pregnant women must avail of pre- and post-natal care and be attended during childbirth by a trained health professional: b) Parents must attend family development sessions; c) 0-5 year old children must receive regular preventive health check-ups and vaccines and 6-14 yr. Old children must receive deworming pills twice a year;
91 RAVirola/17 March 2011 85% of the time least
d) 3-14 yr old Human Development Cluster Meeting children
must attend day acre or pre-school/elementary/highschool classes at

E. Next Steps/Future Directions
Dissemination Activities of the NSCB on the 2009 poverty statistics
Release of the food and poverty thresholds for 2010 and 2011 and
advance estimates for 2012
Release of the 2009 poverty statistics for the basic sectors

Will be released two months after the provision of the merged FIES and LFS public use files by the NSO.
Generation of 2006* city and municipal level poverty estimates using

small area estimation methodology Will be part of the research agenda of the TC PovStat for 2011 (Dependent on the provision of the 2007 CPH datafile)
Note: * The NSCB wanted to update the city/municipal level estimates of poverty for 2009; however, datafile of the 2010 Census of Population and Housing (CPH) will only be available two years from now (per info provided by NSO Technical Staff).

G. SOME CONSIDERATIONS/QUESTIONS: 1. Towards poverty alleviation amidst resource constraints, need to balance support for the core poor, the poor and the middle class To sustain poverty reduction, need to maintain a healthy middle class? Improve education? 2. 3. 4. 5. Should target be focused on reducing poverty incidence or reducing subsistence incidence? Employment is not sufficient: quality of employment matters Minimum wage setting too many low paying jobs? Importance of decent job creation

G. SOME THREATS: The poor are vulnerable to: 1. Price increases of: 2. 3. 4. Food Oil
Effect of earthquake/tsunami in Japan La Nia phenomenon Threat to earthquake/other natural calamities/climate change in the Philippines with the poor at a greater risk to: Landslide One meter rise in sea level
Maraming Salamat po!

URL: http://www.nscb.gov.ph e-mail: info@nscb.gov.ph
I. Introduction Who are the members of the Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics (TC PovStat)?
The Committee is composed of professionals/experts who have undertaken significant studies on poverty. Membership in the committee is based on individual expertise and not on representation by agency/institution.
Chairperson: DR. CELIA M. REYES

Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)
Vice Chairpersons: Dr. Romulo A. Virola

NSCB
Administrator Carmelita N. Ericta

National Statistics Office (NSO)
Chairpersons of the Four Small Working Groups: Dr. Lisa Grace S. Bersales
UP School of Statistics
Dr. Arsenio S. Balisacan

UP School of Economics
Dr. Zita VJ Albacea

UP Institute of Statistics
Ms. Dolores de Quiros-Castillo

Former Asst. Sec., National Anti-Poverty Commission
I. Introduction Who are the members of the Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics (TC PovStat)? Members: Dir. Erlinda M. Capones Usec. Alicia R. Bala
Dept. of Social Welfare and Devt.
Dep. Adm. Paula Monina G. Collado OIC-Dir. Myrna Asuncion

NEDA
National Economic Devt. Authority NSO
Asst. Sec. Gen. Lina Castro

NSCB
Dr. Jose Ramon Albert

PIDS
Ms. Emma Fabian

NSO
OIC-Dir. Jessamyn O. Encarnacion

NSCB
Dir. Manuel Gotis

Dept. of Interior & Local Govt.
Dr. Arturo Pacificador

De La Salle University
Dir. Romeo S. Recide

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics
Prof. Ofelia M. Templo

Ateneo de Manila University
Dr. Jocelyn Juguan

Food & 97 RAVirola/17 March 2011Nutrition Research Institute
Ms. Susanita Tesiorna

Trade Union Congress of the Philippines NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD
I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS
Other Poverty Indicators Income gap Poverty gap Severity of poverty
I. Introduction SCHEDULE OF RELEASE

Per System of Designated Statistics, National, regional, and provincial levels
Subsistence incidence and magnitude of the subsistence poor Poverty incidence and magnitude of the poor Income and poverty gap, severity of poverty Thresholds - Annually
Every three years
The NSCB releases incidences and magnitude of the poor within two months after the provision of the FIES public use file (PUF) by the NSO
Note: PUF on the final results of the 2009 Family Income and Expenditure Survey was provided by the NSO to the NSCB on 10 January 2011. Poverty statistics were released February 8, 2011
I. Introduction
WHY THE NEED TO REFINE THE METHODOLOGY? HAS THE DEFINITION OF POVERTY CHANGED?
1. The UN Statistical Commission prescribes international standards and guidelines on statistical measurement and practices These standards guide official statisticians They are based on recommendations of Expert Groups/Friends of the Chair/City Groups organized by international organizations like the UNSD/ILO/FAO/World Bank/EU/OECD/IMF These standards/guidelines change/evolve But there is no international standard on measuring poverty.
I. Introduction
2. It is standard practice among official statisticians all over the world to refine and update definitions, methodologies and statistical frameworks to better reflect current phenomena. Availability criterion on Unemployment (13th ICLS, 1982) Effect: Reduces Unemployment
Capitalization of Expenditures on R & D and Mineral Exploration (1993 SNA) Effect: Increases GDP
Transfer of Monetization of Gold to Financial Accounts from Exports (1993 SNA) Effect: Decreases GDP
I. Introduction
3. Refinements in poverty methodology are not meant to change the definition of poverty; they are meant to provide better measures of poverty
4. To address some issues/concerns raised on the Official Poverty Estimation Methodology Issues on the estimation of the food threshold, poverty threshold, incidence and other measures of poverty Income-based or Expenditure-based Direct or Indirect Estimation of NonFood Threshold Constant or Changing FE/TBE ratio Could be underestimating poverty in poor areas; overestimating poverty in nonpoor areas
I. Introduction
WHY THE NEED TO REFINE THE METHODOLOGY? HAS THE DEFINITION OF POVERTY CHANGED? 4. To address some issues/concerns raised on the Official Poverty Estimation Methodology Improvement of the relevance of official poverty statistics Regional or Provincial disaggregation
Issues on the comparability of poverty estimates across space and over time
One food bundle or many food bundles
I. Introduction
WHY THE NEED TO REVISE THE EXISTING METHODOLOGY? 5. Instruction of the NSCB Executive Board The NSCB Executive Board, in its meeting on 6 November 2002, instructed the NSCB Technical Staff to undertake a phased revision of the official provincial poverty estimation methodology.
The 1st Phase was undertaken in the development of the existing official estimation methodology, approved per NSCB Resolution No. 1, Series of 2003.
II. Overview of the Methodology/2010 Refinements Old 2003 Methodology

Regional food bundle*
100% RDA for energy 100% RDA for protein 80% RDA for vitamins and minerals
Note: * - Earlier referred to as food menu
Visualizable
Low cost
Food eaten in the area
Actual Prices
Farmgate Price
Retail Price
FOOD THRESHOLD
If income/expenditure of family/individual is less than food threshold

Provincial SUBSISTENCE INCIDENCE and MAGNITUDE OF SUBSISTENCE POOR
II. Overview of the Methodology/2010 Refinements
Old 2003 Methodology

Food threshold Non-food threshold
Changing FE/TBE from Reference Population Actual Food Expenditure

1. 2. 3. 4. Education Clothing & footwear Medical care Transportation & communication 5. Fuel, light & water 6. Housing 7. Housing maintenance & other minor repairs 8. Non-durable furnishings 9. Household operations 10. Personal care & effects 11. Rental of occupied dwelling unit
Actual Non-Food Expenditure 11 non-food basic needs
POVERTY THRESHOLD
If income/expenditure of family/individual is less than poverty threshold

Provincial POVERTY INCIDENCE and MAGNITUDE OF POOR

What were the activities undertaken by the TC PovStat in coming-up with the refinements in the methodology? Activities 1. Project on the Comprehensive Documentation of Official Poverty Statistics 2. Overall review of the official poverty estimation methodology Description - Come-up with a complete documentation of all components of the poverty methodology. Output -Documentation of the methodology - Reviewed/documented findings of various papers that discussed the issues being raised on the methodology. - Recommendations on the poverty estimation methodology
- Started in 2008 - Took off from the outputs of the Documentation Project - Undertaken thru the creation of 4 Small Working Groups (SWGs) - recommendations were finalized based on recommendation of TC PovStat - The Committee intended to refine methodology at the start of new administration to avoid any misconception on the objectives.

What were the activities undertaken by the TC PovStat in coming-up with the refinements in the methodology?
Activities 3. Consultative Forum on the Proposed refinements on the Official Poverty Estimation Methodology
Description -Held on 28 January 2011

Note: It must be noted that the NSCB Technical Staff invited approximately 85 major users and stakeholders from the national government agencies, the academe, non-government organizations and other institutions/organizations with the aim of conducting the consultation to a wider audience. However, it was participated by only 40 representatives from various agencies.
Output -Documentation of the methodology - Reviewed/documented findings of various papers that discussed the issues being raised on the methodology.
4. Regular Reporting/updating to the NSCB Executive Board
- The Board was updated in its 5 meetings in 2009 and 2010 on the Committees plan on the 2009 official poverty statistics

Components
Old 2003 Methodology Income-based
Refined Methodology Income-based
Remarks/Considerations No change
I. ESTIMATION OF THE FOOD THRESHOLD

a. Artifice to use Use region-based food bundles that are: Use provincial food bundles, with food items that are: -To capture province-specific characteristics in the estimation of provincial poverty statistics -To ensure that the bundle chosen for the province is superior over another bundle based on preferences, that is, the former will provide the least cost but with the same level of utility -Used a national reference food bundle as a starting point to enhance consistency across space
Low-cost
-Least cost food bundle for the province as it passed the Test of Revealed Preference
-Were developed based on an indicative national food bundle

Components Old 2003 Methodology Use of the FE/TBE ratio by province urban-rural for the respective FIES year. Refined Methodology Remarks/ Considerations
II. ESTIMATION OF THE POVERTY THRESHOLD a. FE/TBE ratio -Use the average FE/TBE ratio for 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009 - To ensure that the parameters are fairly stable since FE/TBE ratios do not change dramatically over time -To ensure consistency over time for at least two administrations -To ensure consistency across space -The use of a constant FE/TBE ratio has been suggested by the NSCB Technical Staff since 2003.
-To be used for 12 years
Note: Ranges of FE/TBE ratios 2000 0.55958 to 0.80848 2003 0.42498 to 0.79094 2006 0.50892 to 0.75945
-Where the FE/TBE ratio for each FIES year is nationally determined
Ranges of Provincial FE/TBE Ratios Based on the 2003 Methodology Year 2000 2003 2006 Urban Minimum
0.55958
(Benguet)
Rural Minimum
0.60264
(Lanao del Sur)
Maximum
0.77514
(Biliran)
Maximum
0.80848
(Eastern Samar)
0.42498
(Ifugao)
0.79094
(Camiguin)
0.62348
(Batangas)
0.76892
(Zambales)
0.50892
(Ifugao)
0.74921
(Antique)
0.58883
(Batangas)
0.75945
(Bukidnon)

Regional Food Bundle for Region III (Central Luzon) (used in the Old 2003 Methodology)
Meal Time Urban Breakfast Eggplant Omelet Toasted Dilis Tomato Slices Fried Rice Coffee-Adults Milk-Children Lunch Kamote Tops Salad Binagis Boiled Rice Dinner Fried Galunggong Munggo Guisado w/ small shrimps and malunggay leaves Boiled Rice Ripe Mangoes Snack Pandesal Boiled Kamote Margarine
Viands Rural
Boiled Rice Coffee-Adults Milk-Children Bulanglang Banana Boiled Rice Fried Dalagang Bukid Munggo Guisado w/ malunggay leaves and pork liver Boiled Rice
Region III provinces:

Aurora Bataan Bulacan N. Ecija Pampanga Tarlac Zambales
Margarine 112 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Regional Food Bundle for Region III (used in the old methodology)
Meal Time Urban Breakfast Eggplant Omelet Viands Rural Toasted Dilis Tomato Slices Fried Rice Coffee-Adults Milk-Children Lunch Kamote Tops Salad Binagis Boiled Rice Dinner Boiled Rice Coffee-Adults Milk-Children Bulanglang Banana Boiled Rice
Major sources of Protein in Region IIIs food bundle is Galunggong/Dalagang Bukid. Other source of protein available in the region is Tilapia. 2009 Prices in Bataan (Based on BAS and NSO data): Galunggong= PhP 90.05 Dalagang Bukid= PhP 105.42 Tilapia = PhP 81.53
2009 prices of:
Fried Galunggong
Munggo Guisado w/ small shrimps and malunggay leaves Boiled Rice Ripe Mangoes
Fried Dalagang Bukid

Munggo Guisado w/ malunggay leaves and pork liver Boiled Rice
TILAPIA < Galunggong < Dalagang Bukid
Snack
Pandesal Margarine
Boiled Kamote Margarine
For purposes of poverty monitoring, is it correct to use as a yardstick a higherpriced commodity/food item as compared to a lower one, which will also give the same nutritional requirement?
Issue: Comparability across Space

Using the old 2003 methodology Using the refined 2011 methodology
Sarangani Cebu Batangas 1st District of NCR 0% 20%
0.727 0.675 0.579 0.605 40% 60%
0.273 0.325 0.421 0.395

80% 100%
Sarangani Cebu Batangas 1st District of NCR 0.00 0.20
0.698 0.698 0.698 0.698 0.40 0.60
0.302 0.302 0.302 0.302 0.80 1.00
Share of Food Expenditure to Total Basic Expenditure
Share of Food Expenditure to Total Expenditure
Issue: Comparability over time : Example, 1st District of NCR (Manila City)
Using the old 2003 methodology Using the refined 2011 methodology
2009
0.605
0.395
2009
0.698
0.302
2006
0.566
0.434
2006
0.698
0.302
2003
0.579
0.421
2003
1.0
0.698
0.302
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
III. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics A. Main Results

NATIONAL (among FAMILIES): Confidence intervals, which show the range of the true value of the estimates, show that no significant decline between 2006 and 2009 can be concluded both in the subsistence and poverty incidences. Subsistence Incidence among Families (%)
9.5 22 21.8 9.1 9
Subsistence Incidence (%) Poverty Incidence (%)

21.6
8.7 8.5
8.7
8.2 8.3
21 20.7
21.1 20.9
20.3 20.2
8.2
8 7.8 7.5
7.9
7.5
20
20
19.2 7 2003 2006 2009 19 2003 2006 2009
III. Highlights of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

2003 Confidence Intervals of Poverty Incidence Among Provinces in the Bottom Cluster
70 60
Poverty Incidence
50 40 30 20 10 0
Province
2006 Confidence Intervals of the Poverty incidence Among Provinces in the Bottom Cluster
70 60
Po verty In cid en ce
50 40 30 20 10 0
Province

2009 Confidence Intervals of Poverty incidence Among Provinces in the Bottom Cluster
70 60
Poverty Incidence
50 40 30 20 10 0
Zamboanga del Norte Eastern Samar Romblon Northern Samar Sulu M isamis Occidental Apayao Camarines Norte
Province

According to Article 124, Standards/Criteria for Minimum Wage Fixing of the Republic Act No. 6727, or the act known as the Wage Rationalization Act, The regional minimum wages to be established by the Regional Board shall be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible to maintain the minimum standards of living necessary for the health, efficiency and general well-being of the employees within the framework of the national economic and social development program.

2009 Philippine Poverty Statistics

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2009 Philippine Poverty Statistics

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2009 Official Poverty Statistics:

Towards Better Targeted and Focused Poverty Reduction Programs

Presented by Romulo A. Virola

Human Development Cluster Meeting

Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Also referred to as the subsistence threshold or the food poverty line

Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Is equal to the cost of minimum basic needs: food + non-food

Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Human Development Cluster Meeting RAVirola/17 March 2011

10 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Human Development Cluster Meeting

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

I. Introduction APPROVED REFINEMENTS IN THE OFFICIAL POVERTY ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

2010 Refined Methodology

Price Data Used Non-Food Threshold Estimation Reference Family

11 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Human Development Cluster Meeting

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Food eaten in the area

If income/expenditure of family/individual is less than food threshold

12 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Human Development Cluster Meeting

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Non-food threshold Constant FE/TBE ratio

If income/expenditure of family/individual is less than poverty threshold

13 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Human Development Cluster Meeting

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Sample translation: NCR

14 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Human Development Cluster Meeting

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Sample translation: Nueva Ecija

15 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Human Development Cluster Meeting

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

Sample translation: Zamboanga del Norte

16 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Human Development Cluster Meeting

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

III. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

17 RAVirola/17 March 2011

Human Development Cluster Meeting

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

II. Highlights of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

Human Development Cluster Meeting (in million) RAVirola/17 March 2011

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

II. Highlights of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics A. NATIONAL

Poverty Threshold for a Family of Five (in Php)

4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000

19 RAVirola/17 March 2011