Implementing a Cash Grant Program for the Homeless in Metro Manila, The Philippines

  • Ada Colico-Aquino
  • Jungbu Kim


As recently as July 2012, the Philippine government took a challenge to develop programs for homeless families and applied a “social technology design” to reach the hard-core poor, with a program named Modified Conditional Cash Transfer (MCCT). MCCT targets homeless street families (HSFs) with children under 14 years of age and aims to provide a complete package of assistance including not only education and health but also shelter assistance with a view to improving their accessibility to other social services and economic opportunities. How is this program being implemented? Could this be a solution to the iterant and persistent problem of homelessness in the Philippines? Are there any lessons to be learned for improving the current program? Can this be replicated in other cities and countries with similar problems? This chapter will examine these questions by looking at the policy process of the program, with particular attention to the particulars of the program design, key actors (politicians, public officials/department bureaucrats, nongovernmental organizations, and the homeless) and collaboration among them, and their respective resources including expertise of the collaboration participants. We use the policy process approach which is a heuristic for simplifying and understanding the complex world of numerous policies. The approach helps us identify key features of the policy world in a way that provides an intuitive understanding of it. The chapter concludes by describing how the Philippine government is implementing the MCCT program, drawing upon the multiple theories of the policy process that since the 1970s have been developed and applied in explaining the complex policy world.


Policy Process Cash Transfer Street Child Homeless Individual Conditional Cash Transfer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson JE (1974) Public policy-making. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Birkland TA (2011) An introduction to the policy process, 3rd edn. M. E. Sharp, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Child Hope Asia Philippines Projects and Activities. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from
  4. De Leon P (1999) The stages approach to the policy process. In: Sabatier PA (ed) The theory of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp 19–32Google Scholar
  5. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2012) OPG memo.circular 05: Guidelines on the pilot implementation of the modified conditional cash transfer for homeless street families (MCCT-HSF). Quezon City: AuthorGoogle Scholar
  6. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2013a) Memo. circular series of 2013, with subject: Guidelines on the implementation of the modified conditional cash transfer for homeless street families (MCCT-HSF). Author, Quezon CityGoogle Scholar
  7. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2013b) DSWD report on socio-economic profile of homeless street families dtd February 21, 2013. Author, Quezon CityGoogle Scholar
  8. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2013c) Pantawid-MCCT field manual version February 26,2013. Author, Quezon CityGoogle Scholar
  9. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2013d) MCCT July update report. Author, Manila CityGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Social Welfare and Development (2013e) MCCT operations issues and concerns dtd June 5, 2013. Author, Quezon CityGoogle Scholar
  11. Gawad Kalinga (2011) Our view on poverty. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from website.
  12. Jones CO (1977) An introduction to the study of public policy, 2nd edn. Duxbury Press, North ScituateGoogle Scholar
  13. Kingdon JW (2003) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2nd edn. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamberte E (2002) Ours to protect and nurture: the case of children needing special protection. Social Development Research Center, De La Salle University, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  15. Lasswell HD (1971) A pre-view of the policy sciences. American Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Lipsky M (1980) Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individuals in public services. Russell Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Nugroho D, Parker B, Moran C, Sugden C, Floyd K, Brindley C (2008) Sagip or huli? Indiscriminate rescue of street children in the city of Manila. Bahay Tuluyan, Manila CityGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Toole L (1986) Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: an assessment of the field. J Publ Policy 6(2):181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Toole L (1993) Interorganizational policy studies: lessons drawn from implementation research. J Public Adm Res Theory 3(2):232–251Google Scholar
  20. Radin BA (2007) The instruments of intergovernmental management. In: Peter BG, Pierre J (eds) Handbook of public administration. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 365–376Google Scholar
  21. Rainey HG (2010) Understanding and managing public organizations, 4th edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. Rittel HW, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rochefort DA, Cobb RW (1994) Problem definition: an emerging perspective. In: Rochefort DA, Cobb RW (eds) The politics of problem definition: shaping the policy agenda. University Press of Kansas, Kansas, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  24. Sabatier PA (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 21:129–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC (1999) The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 117–166Google Scholar
  26. Sabatier PA, Mazmanian D (1979) The conditions of effective implementation: a guide to accomplishing policy objectives. Policy Anal 5(4):481–504Google Scholar
  27. Sabatier PA, Weible CM (2007) The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 189–221Google Scholar
  28. Scerri C (2009) Sagip or huli? Rescue of street children in Caloocan, Pasay and Quezon cities. Bahay Tuluyan, Manila CityGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider AL, Ingram H (1997) Policy design for democracy. University Press of KansasGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith KB, Larimer CW (2013) The public policy theory primer, 2nd edn. Westview PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Stone D (2012) Policy paradox: the art of political decision making, 3rd edn. W. W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Street Children Development Center (2013) A situationer of street children in the Philippines. Paper presented at the Civil Society Forum on Promoting and Protecting the Right of Street Children in Southeast Asia, Bangkok, Thailand, MarchGoogle Scholar
  33. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. (Habitat) (2000) Strategies to combat homelessness. Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu X, Ramesh M, Howlett M, Fritzen SA (2010) The public policy primer: making the policy process. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Welfare and Development – National Capital RegionManilaThe Republic of the Philippines
  2. 2.Department of Public AdministrationKyungHee UniversitySeoulThe Republic of Korea

Personalised recommendations