Author

Criselda B. Pakiwon*
DSWD-CAR (PDO II-4Ps), Poitan, Banaue, Ifugao, Philippines

Abstract

This study evaluated the implementation and effectiveness of the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) through the Livelihood Assistance Grant (LAG) among Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) beneficiaries in Tinglayan, Kalinga. It examined the beneficiaries’ demographic profile, the level of program implementation, the extent of sustained progress in terms of financial, human, social and physical/natural capital, and the types of livelihood activities undertaken. The study also analyzed the relationship between program implementation and sustained progress, as well as the challenges faced in maintaining livelihood projects among active and graduated beneficiaries who received SLP-LAG from 2021 to 2022. The study used a multi-method research design that combined survey questionnaires with key informant interviews involving SLP personnel and LGU staff. A total of 50 respondents participated, including 23 active 4Ps beneficiaries, 23 graduated beneficiaries, and 4 key informants. The results of the correlational analysis showed a strong and significant relationship between program implementation and sustained livelihood progress (r = 0.689, p < 0.001), suggesting that better implementation leads to improved livelihood outcomes among beneficiaries. The findings indicted that the program was implemented to a high extent across its core components such as social preparation, resource mobilization, monitoring and technical assistance. Beneficiaries revealed moderate to substantial improvements across various livelihood capitals. The majority were engaged in carpentry services, retailing and sari-sari store operations, while fewer participated in handicrafts, agricultural activities and home-based food production. Despite these gains, not all livelihood projects were sustained with some becoming non-operational due to factors such as geographical isolation, limited market access, financial constraints, income instability and gaps in entrepreneurial and financial management capacities. The study concludes that while the SLP-LAG is effective in supporting livelihood development, its long-term sustainability depends on various contextual, economic and socio-cultural factors. To address these challenges, it is recommended that implementing agencies strengthen monitoring and technical assistance, enhance capacity-building initiatives and expand financial support mechanisms. In addition, improving market linkages and transportation support as well as ensuring dedicated personnel, additional funding and policy-based incentives can help sustain livelihood projects among 4Ps beneficiaries.

Keywords: Sustainable Livelihood Program, Livelihood Assistance Grant, 4Ps beneficiaries, livelihood sustainability, Tinglayan Kalinga, multi-method research, program evaluation, microenterprise, income generation.

*Corresponding author/ Email: pczel19@gmail.com
DOI: http://doi.org/10.69651/PIJHSS0502942

Recommended citation:
Pakiwon, C. B. (2026). Evaluation of the sustainable livelihood program–livelihood assistance grants among 4PS beneficiaries in Tinglayan, Kalinga. Pantao (The International Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences) 5 (2), 809-824. http://doi.org/10.69651/PIJHSS0502942

Read the full text

References

Philippine Statistics Authority–Cordillera Administrative Region. (2024). Proportion of poor Filipinos in Kalinga, 2023 (Reference No. 24CAR32-1532). PSA-CAR.

Department of Social Welfare and Development. (2023). Memorandum circular no. 7, series of 2023: Enhanced guidelines on Sustainable Livelihood Program implementation. DSWD.

Republic Act No. 11310. (2019). An act institutionalizing the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UN General Assembly.

Ballesteros, M. M., Orbeta, A. C., Corpus, J. P., Paqueo, V. B., & Reyes, C. M. (2020). Impacts of the Sustainable Livelihood Program’s microenterprise development assistance with seed capital fund on poor households in the Philippines (Discussion Paper No. 2020-36). Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Albert, J. R. G., Santos, A. G. M., & Vizmanos, J. F. V. (2019). Profile and determinants of poverty in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Barrientos, A., & Hulme, D. (2008). Social protection for the poor and poorest: Concepts, policies and politics. Palgrave Macmillan.

Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies.

Department of Social Welfare and Development. (2019). Sustainable Livelihood Program operational guidelines and memorandum circulars. DSWD.

Department of Social Welfare and Development. (n.d.). Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). DSWD.

DFID. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department for International Development.

Orbeta, A. C., Jr., Abdon, A., del Mundo, M., Tutor, M., Valera, M. T., & Yarcia, D. (2014). Keeping children healthy and in school: Evaluating the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Philippine Institute for Development Studies. (2021). Assessment of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) and its complementary programs. PIDS.

Department of Social Welfare and Development. (2019). Sustainable Livelihood Program operational guidelines and memorandum circulars. Quezon City, Philippines.

Department of Social Welfare and Development. (2020). Sustainable Livelihood Program framework and implementation. DSWD.

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2023). Full year official poverty statistics of the Philippines. PSA.

Philippine Statistics Authority–Cordillera Administrative Region. (2024). Poverty statistics in CAR. PSA-CAR.

Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis (Working Paper No. 72). Institute of Development Studies.

Ashley, C., & Carney, D. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience. Department for International Development.

Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press.

Fiszbein, A., & Schady, N. (2009). Conditional cash transfers: Reducing present and future poverty. World Bank.

Morduch, J. (1999). The microfinance promise. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(4), 1569-1614.

World Bank. (2018). The state of social safety nets 2018. World Bank.

Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. PublicAffairs.

Adato, M., & Hoddinott, J. (2007). Conditional cash transfer programs: A “magic bullet” for reducing poverty? International Food Policy Research Institute.

Asian Development Bank. (2012). Social protection index: Assessing results for Asia and the Pacific. ADB.

Heckman, J. J., & Smith, J. A. (1995). Assessing the case for social experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 85-110.

Hulme, D., Moore, K., & Shepherd, A. (2001). Chronic poverty: Meanings and analytical frameworks (Working Paper). Chronic Poverty Research Centre.

Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender equality and women’s empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal. Gender and Development, 13(1), 13-24.

Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., & Koch-Schulte, S. (2000). Voices of the poor: Can anyone hear us? World Bank.

OECD. (2019). Social protection systems: Review of evidence. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Ravallion, M. (2016). The economics of poverty: History, measurement, and policy. Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

World Bank. (2020). Poverty and shared prosperity 2020: Reversals of fortune. World Bank.

Banerjee, A. V., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2015). The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 22-53.

Barca, V., & Beazley, R. (2019). Building on government systems for shock-responsive social protection. Overseas Development Institute.

Devereux, S., & Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2004). Transformative social protection (Working Paper No. 232). Institute of Development Studies.

Fultz, E., & Francis, J. (2013). Social protection in developing countries: Reform and policy issues. International Labour Organization.

Gentilini, U. (2022). Cash transfers in pandemic times: Evidence, practices, and implications. World Bank.

Gertler, P., Martinez, S., & Rubio-Codina, M. (2012). Investing cash transfers to raise long-term living standards. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(1), 164-192.

Kidd, S. (2017). Social exclusion and access to social protection. Development Pathways.

Pritchett, L. (2005). A lecture on social protection and state capability. World Bank.

White, H. (2013). An introduction to the use of randomized control trials in evaluation of development interventions. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 5(3), 331-338.

Skoufias, E., & Parker, S. W. (2001). Conditional cash transfers and their impact on child work and schooling: Evidence from the PROGRESA program in Mexico. Econometrica, 69(2), 1-25.

Manasan, R. G. (2018). Assessing government social protection programs in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Reyes, C. M., Tabuga, A. D., Mina, C. D., & Asis, R. D. (2015). Dynamics of poverty in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.