Digital Payments for Philippine COVID19 Social Amelioration Program SAP Towards G2P 40 Context PHL Government introduced a large scale COVID19 response Social Amelioration Program SAP to cover over 3 out of 4 households in the country ID: 935810
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Nov 17 2021 Beneficiary Centric G2P - So..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Nov 17 2021
Beneficiary Centric G2P - South Africa - Workshop
Digital Payments for Philippine COVID-19 Social Amelioration Program (SAP)
Towards G2P 4.0
Slide2Context
PHL Government introduced a large scale COVID-19 response – Social Amelioration Program (SAP) to cover over 3 out of 4 households in the country
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps): country’s flagship safety net with Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) that covers about 1/5 of households, for which digital payments have been made (through
LandBank
Cash cards). 4Ps beneficiaries automatically part of SAP, but no straightforward mechanisms to identify other beneficiaries beyond 4Ps.
Listahanan
: Country’s registry (based on census sweep) was outdated
PhilSys
: Country’s foundational national ID was at nascent stage
Manual process introduced with paper application and physical cash delivery
Slide3Context: urgent need for digital G2P payments
Slide4Context
WB’s Beneficiary FIRST SP project (US$ 600m) was brought in
FIRST: Fast, Innovative, and Responsive Service Transformation
Short term COVID-19 response and support for 4Ps
Medium term SP systems strengthening: Digital ID, digital data governance, and digital payments
Our studies – part of digital G2P agenda
Slide5Research Approach
OBJECTIVE:
Document lessons learned from the implementation of SAP 2 (2
nd
tranche of social amelioration program), to inform transition to future digital G2P payments delivery (G2P 4.0)
FOCUS AREAS:
Beneficiary registration and payment delivery (successes & challenges)
METHODOLOGY:
Qualitative
(desk review + KIIs with DSWD (4Ps NPMO, FMS, PMB), BSP, and FSPs [Robinsons Bank, Union Bank, RCBC, GCash and PayMaya]) + Quantitative IPA survey study on beneficiary experience
DATA COLLECTION TIMEFRAME: Interviews conducted from Nov 2020 to January 2021, and Surveys in Feb-April 2021 (IPA-WB study)
Slide6What worked well…
Clear eligibility criteria
for participating FSPs were established and
multilateral MOA with 6 FSPs signed
– DSWD and BSP joint leadership for communication and transparency
Online registration:
Introduced a web-based platform i.e., ReliefAgad with 2 million applicants who self-registered and indicated preferred payment channel
Proven payment infrastructure
(i.e., PESONet, InstaPay) and
support of FSPs
in opening bank/e-money accounts for beneficiaries facilitated digital payments – increased access points for beneficiaries & reduced physical interactions, opened door for financial inclusion
Supported scaling-up of SAP coverage:
Catered to an expanded pool of beneficiaries i.e., additional 5.3 million waitlisted households. DSWD estimated
11 million SAP2 beneficiaries who received benefits through digital channels including 4Ps beneficiaries
Slide7What can be improved…
Low quality of
beneficiary registration data and information system
Majority of invalid or duplicative data from SAP1 paper-based forms were inherited in SAP2
- cleaning and checking data was an unexpected increased in workload for FSPs and delayed the payment processReliefAgad by design used beneficiary SAC form and barcode which required field-based verification/deduplication…missed the opportunity to build IT system that can verify applicant identity with functional IDs and to cross-reference with other databases of COVID-19 programs
30-35% payroll data with duplicate mobile numbers tagged by FSPs as “unsuccessful disbursements” – DSWD had to re-assigned beneficiaries to RCBC or processed payments manually
Lack of
government-issued ID
prevented beneficiaries from easily cashing out
Slide8SAP2 Beneficiary Journey Map (Banks)
Slide9SAP2 Beneficiary Journey Map (EMIs)
Slide10Quantitative Survey
Slide11SAC Data from ICTMS
HH demographic information of digital and non-digital beneficiaries
E.g. Family roster, monthly income, work, phone number,
etc
FSP Data from FMS
Cash transfer information of digital beneficiaries
E.g. Date and time of cash transfer, status, amount disbursed
Quantitative Survey Sample:
Merging administrative data
No unique Identifier
Slide12SAC Data from ICTMS was clean but had some issues
~1.5 million households had the same phone number as someone else
~1 million households have more than Php 100,000 (USD 2K) monthly income (vs. Php5-8K)
Slide13FSP data came from hundreds of different XLS/CSV files with varying formats
Slide14How do you tell if two observations refer to the same household? What are reasonable matches?
Joel O Ambrosio
11/21/1978
Brgy
. VI
Joel
Olivar
Ambrosio
11/12/1978
Brgy
. VI
vs
*
This is a fictional example only
Since there was no unique household ID in both datasets, there was
no straightforward way
to merge the datasets and remove duplicates.
Slide15uses names, date of birth, barangay information, etc. to carry out a
fuzzy merge the two data sets.
Assign matching score (scaled 0-1)For matching score <0.95, reduce the set of variables to be matched and run the fuzzy mergeRetain reasonable matches with slight variations (e.g. Jr vs Junior, 01/01/1987 vs 11/01/1987)
Repeat the process
Fuzzy Matching
Slide16After four weeks, about 65% of FSP data matched
FSP
SAC
Matched
Matched over FSP
REGION III
1,545,551
1,742,365
994,158
64%
REGION IV-A
1,725,703
1,867,151
1,076,325
62%
REGION V
133,728
183,456
123,667
92%
REGION VII
401,615
661,736
287,243
72%
TOTAL
3,806,597
4,454,708
2,481,393
65%
Slide17Financial service providers
Profile of Respondents
Majority of beneficiaries received their SAP allowance from
GCash
and
StarPay
.
Slide18Phone Ownership
Profile of Respondents
Of those who own a phone,
69% own a smartphone
81% of respondents own a phone
All respondents
By gender
Slide19Type and frequency of phone use
Profile of Respondents
N=5090
N=5090
Slide20Mobile application account ownership
Profile of Respondents
For those with access to a phone
, slightly more women than men own personal accounts in mobile apps.
By gender
N=5090
Slide21Main income source
Financial Awareness, Capability and Health
Beneficiaries’ main income source come from
earnings
; this is followed by remittances.
Main source of income
Means of receiving income
Almost 90% of beneficiaries receive their income through
cash
. Only 6% receive their income in a bank, 1% in a mobile money account.
Slide22Availability of emergency funds (Php 10,000 about USD 200)
Financial Awareness, Capability and Health
26% of respondents say they would not be able
pay off an unexpected expenses of Php
10,000 within the next 30 days.
Of those that could, 79% say they it would be very difficult.
Slide23Recollection of their own FSP is Low
Program awareness
69% of respondents named another company or service provider instead of their FSP.
FSP*
N
Named another company instead
of FSP**
F6
1,570
22%
F5
1,444
90%
F4
915
97%
F3
809
100%
F2
291
98%
F1
51
33%
Total
5,080
69%
*FSP according to the administrative data.
**This may not necessarily be an account under the FSP.
Slide24Use of SAP Financial Account
Program awareness
Has an account for SAP
F1
531
34%
F2
96
33%
F3
31
4%
F6
1
2%
F5
93
6%
F4
37
4%
Recollection of owning an account with an FSP for their SAP allowance varies by FSP. Of those with an account, few report available features other than for SAP.
N=789
Slide25Payment withdrawal
Program Experience
62%
collected payment by themselves
Almost all
(99.8%) withdrew
entire SAP amount
93%
withdrew SAP in
one trip
Of those reported having difficulty with SAP withdrawal, 29% cited
long queue time
63% reported having
no difficulties
with SAP withdrawal
74% had to travel
outside their barangay
to the payment point
Slide26Travel time and queueing, but significant differences across FSPs
Program Experience
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
Overall
N
1575
1446
917
809
292
51
5090
Travel time in
Mean
17.14
24.40
22.45
19.82
20.86
19.62
20.85
mins (one way)
Median
10.00
20.00
20.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
Queue time
Mean
69.53
194.69
127.77
127.25
69.74
180.96
126.56
in mins
Median
20.00
120.00
60.00
90.00
30.00
120.00
60.00
Time at payment
Mean
9.78
10.43
9.27
8.88
9.04
12.04
9.71
desk in mins
Median
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
Total time cost in hours*
Mean
1.87
4.25
3.01
2.93
1.99
3.87
2.96
Median
1.08
3.12
2.18
2.25
1.33
3.17
2.00
*The time cost is the average of the sum of the queue time, time at payment desk and twice the travel time.
Slide27Withdrawal fees and travel costs, but significant differences across FSPs
Program Experience
Beneficiaries spent an average
Php 132 (Php 100)
to withdraw their SAP payment. There is no significant difference in total cost between FSPs.
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
Overall
N
1575
1446
917
809
292
51
5090
Withdrawal fee
Mean
96.54
57.22
52.70
50.82
79.03
49.35
68.05
Median
100.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
Travel fee (one way)
Mean
21.61
41.15
34.06
38.67
25.23
39.02
32.58
Median
0.00
25.00
20.00
25.00
0.00
30.00
20.00
Total financial cost*
Mean
136.69
138.08
120.29
128.45
134.86
114.19
132.44
Median
110.00
100.00
90.00
110.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
* The financial cost is the average of the sum of the withdrawal fee and twice the travel fee.
Slide28Policy Recommendations
Slide29Moving Toward G2P Payment 4.0
SAP 1
4Ps
SAP 2
Slide30G2P 4.0 Delivery System: Shared and Inclusive Infrastructure
Slide31Recommendation 1
Shift to disbursing both regular and temporary aid through digital channels due to positive experience and benefits
Policy Recommendations
Slide32Recommendation 2
Continue collaborating with FSPs to foster awareness
Standardize onboarding and account processes
Develop communication strategy to support FSP-usage
Support efforts to improve digital financial literacy
Policy Recommendations
Slide33Recommendation 3
Improve the quality and integrity of the data framework:
Unified, standardized database and management information systems
Use
PhilSys for identification and verification of beneficiaries
Policy Recommendations
Slide34Thank you…