5D20APIS20Report Rev120comments ONSF3 Signed

This page is intentionally left blank.

TERMS OF USE OF PSA PUBLICATIONS
The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) reserves exclusive right to reproduce all its
publications in whatever form. Any part of this publication should not be reproduced,
recopied, lent or repackaged for other parties for any commercial purposes without
written permission from PSA. Any part of this publication may only be reproduced for
internal use of the recipient/customer company. Should any portion of the data in this
publication is to be included in a report/article, the source of the data, the title of the
publication and PSA as publisher should always be cited. Any information derived from
the manipulation of data contained in the publication will no longer be the responsibility
of PSA.
ISSN 0119-7851
Published by the
Philippine Statistics Authority, PSA Complex, East Avenue,
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1101
June 2021
The 2020 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) is the fourteenth in a series of poverty
indicators survey conducted nationwide since 1998. The survey gathers data that can be used
to generate non-income indicators related to poverty that will be used to assess and monitor
the poverty situation in the country. It also includes questions about access to drinking water,
sanitation, and hygiene as a commitment to monitor Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6
on people’s access to drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene. Moreover, data from this survey
will serve as input in the development of the Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI).
Additional information about the 2020 APIS may be obtained from the Philippine Statistics
Authority, PSA Complex, East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City; telephone: (+632) 8462-6600;
email: info@psa.gov.ph; internet: psa.gov.ph.
For technical inquiries, please direct calls at (+632) 8376-1995.
Terms of Use of PSA Publications | v

FOREWORD
The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) is pleased to present the final report of the
2020 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (2020 APIS). It is primarily meant to provide
non-income poverty indicators in assessing Filipino families’ living conditions.
The 2020 APIS final report provides information on demographic characteristics,

education and health status, housing characteristics, and social protections programs
received by Filipino families. It also includes information about the drinking water,
sanitation, and handwashing facilities used by the families to serve as input to monitor
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 in promoting people’s access to drinking
water and sanitation. Moreover, it captures information on the availment of financial
assistance from the different social amelioration programs under the “Bayanihan to
Heal as One Act” which are intended to avert the effects of COVID-19 pandemic
among Filipino families.
The report aims to provide statistics to the planners and policy makers as inputs to
planning, assessment, and evaluation of the various programs designed to reduce
poverty incidence in the country. The data can be used to assess and monitor
non-income-based poverty situation in the country.
The APIS offers data for the general public, researchers, or institutions which may be
used for studies related to poverty and its correlates like education, water, sanitation,
and housing characteristics. Moreover, these data have been generated in
accordance with principles, standards, classifications set by international
recommendations, and guidelines adapted in local conditions.
The PSA extends its sincerest gratitude to the interviewers’ and supervisors’
perseverance and dedication to continue to undertake the survey amidst the
COVID-19 pandemic; and to individuals and organizations who contributed to the
successful completion of the 2020 APIS, thereby making this publication possible.
Above all, we thank the several thousands of households who liberally shared their
time, effort, and information during the data collection.
DENNIS S. MAPA Ph.D.

Undersecretary
National Statistician and Civil Registrar General
Quezon City, Philippines

June 2021
Foreword | vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE i
COPYRIGHT PAGE iii
TERMS OF USE OF PSA PUBLICATIONS v
FOREWORD vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF TABLES xii
LIST OF FIGURES xvi
MAP OF THE PHILIPPINES xx
CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND 1
1.1 Objectives of the Survey 1

1.2 Sampling Design 2
1.3 Response Rate 2
1.4 Limitations of the Data 2
1.5 Survey Questionnaire 3
1.6 Concepts and Definitions 4
CHAPTER 2 FAMILY SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY 7

HEAD
2.1 Average Family Size 8

2.2 Age and Sex of Family Head 8
2.3 Educational Attainment of Family Head 9
CHAPTER 3 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 21
3.1 Type of Building/House 22

3.2 Construction Materials of the Roof and Outer Walls 23
3.3 Tenure Status of Housing Unit and Lot 24
3.4 Floor Area of Housing Unit 26
3.5 Household Conveniences 27
3.6 Subscription to Cable, Broadband Internet and Video Streaming
Services 28
3.7 Internet and Online Transactions 28
3.8 Electricity 29
Table of Contents | ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 4 WATER, SANITATION AND HANDWASHING FACILITY 41
4.1 Sanitation Facility 42

4.2 Handwashing 45
4.3 Drinking Water 48
4.4 Main Source of Water Supply 51
CHAPTER 5 EDUCATION 58
5.1 Highest Grade Completed of Population 5 Years and Over 59

5.2 Attendance in School of Persons 3 to 24 Years Old 60
5.3 Reasons for not Attending School 62
5.4 Families with Children Aged 6 to 11 Years in Grade 1 to Grade 6 64
5.5 Families with Children Aged 6 to 11 Years in Junior High School
(Grade 7 to Grade 10) 65
CHAPTER 6 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 88
6.1 Educational Service Contracting Program for Junior High School 89

6.2 Senior High School Voucher Program 89
6.3 Free Tuition (SUCs/LUCs) and Tertiary Education Subsidy 91
CHAPTER 7 HEALTH STATUS 96
7.1 Health Status of Family Members 97

7.2 Operation Timbang of Family Members 0 to 5 Years Old 100
CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS 106
8.1 Social Assistance Programs Under Bayanihan to Heal as One Act 107
8.2 Social Assistance 109
8.3 Feeding Program 110
8.4 Social Insurance 110
8.5 PhilHealth Membership 112
8.6 Disaster-Preparedness Kit 113
x | Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 9 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION 123
9.1 Availment of Loan and Its Source 124

9.2 Cooperative Membership 125
9.3 Feeling Safe Walking Alone in the Community at Night 125
9.4 Feeling Safe from Sexual Harassment 126
APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 132
Table of Contents | xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
CHAPTER 2 - FAMILY SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY HEAD
Table 2.1 Average Family Size by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 10
Table 2.2 Families by Selected Background Characteristics of the Family
Head by Region, Residence, and Sex: Philippines, 2020 11
CHAPTER 3 - HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Table 3.1 Families by Type of Building/House They Reside by Region

and Residence: Philippines, 2020 31
Table 3.2 Families by Type of Construction Materials of the Roof by Region
Table 3.3 Families by Type of Construction Materials of the Outer Walls by
Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 33
Table 3.4 Families by Tenure Status of the Housing Unit and Lot They
Occupy by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 34
Table 3.5 Families by Floor Area of Housing Unit They Occupy by Region
Table 3.6 Families Ownership of Household Conveniences by Region and
Residence: Philippines, 2020 36
Table 3.7 Families Who Had Subscribed to Cable, Broadband/Fiber/DSL
Internet and Video Screaming Services by Region and Residence:
Philippines, 2020 38
Table 3.8 Families Who Used Internet and Made Online Transactions in the
Last 6 Months by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 39
Table 3.9 Families with Electricity in House/Building They Reside in, Main
Source of Water Supply by Region and Residence: Philippines,
2020 40
CHAPTER 4 - WATER, SANITATION AND HANDWASHING FACILITY
Table 4.1 Percentage of Families by Sanitation Facilities, According to their

Table 4.2 Percentage of Families by Service Level of Sanitation Facilities,
According to their Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 53
xii | List of Tables

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.3 Percentage of Families in which Handwashing Facilities and

Availability of Water and Soap were Observed, According to their
Table 4.4 Percentage of Families by Service Level in which Handwashing
Facilities was Observed, According to their Region and Residence:
Table 4.5 Percentage of Families by Source of Drinking Water, Treatment of
Drinking Water, Sufficiency of Water, and Time to Obtain Drinking
Water, According to their Residence: Philippines, 2020 56
Table 4.6 Percentage of Families by Service Level of Drinking Water,
According to their Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 57
CHAPTER 5 - EDUCATION
Table 5.1 Population Aged 5 Years or Over by Sex, Highest Grade/Year

Completed, Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 66
Table 5.2 Population Aged 3 to 24 Years by Schooling Status by Sex, Age
Group, Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 73
Table 5.3 Population Aged 3 to 24 Years Who Were Attending School by Sex,
Current Grade/Year Level Attending by Region and Residence:
Table 5.4 Population Aged 6 to 24 Years Who Were Not Attending School by
Reason for Not Attending School by Region, Residence, and
Sex: Philippines, 2020 81
Table 5.5 Families with Children Aged 6 to 11 Years in Grade 1 to 6 by
Table 5.6 Families with Children Aged 12 to 15 Years in Junior High School
Education (Grade 7 to 10) by Region and Residence:
List of Tables | xiii

LIST OF TABLES
Page
CHAPTER 6 - EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Table 6.1 Population 11 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Educational Service

Contracting during Academic Year 2019-2020 by Sex, Region,
Table 6.2 Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Senior Highschool
Voucher Program during Academic Year 2019-2020 by Sex,
Region, and Residence: Philippines, 2020 94
Table 6.3 Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Free Tuition
(SUC/LUC) and Tertiary Education Subsidy during Academic Year
2019-2020 by Sex, Region, and Residence: Philippines, 2020 95
CHAPTER 7 - HEALTH STATUS
Table 7.1 Percentage of Population by Number of Times a Person Got

Ill/Sick or Injured in the Past Month by Region, Residence, and
Sex: Philippines, 2020 102
Table 7.2 Population 5 Years Old and Over Who Experience
Illness/Sickness or Injury and Percentage of Whether the
Illness/Sickness or Injury was the Reason for Being Absent from
Work or School or For Not Being Able to Perform Daily Activities
in the Past Month by Region, Residence, and Sex: Philippines,
2020 103
Table 7.3 Population Five Years Old and Over Who Experience
Illness/Sickness or Injury and Had Been Absent from Work or
School or Not Being Able to Perform Daily Activities and
Percentage of the Number of Day/s Not Being Able to go to Work
or School, or Not Being Able to Perform Daily Activities Due to
Illness/Sickness or Injury in the Past Month by Region,
Residence, and Sex: Philippines, 2020 104
Table 7.4 Population Aged 0 to 5 Years Old and Percentage of Population
Aged 0 to 5 Years Old Who were Weighed and Number of Times
Weighed in the Past 12 Months by Region, Residence, and Sex:
CHAPTER 8 - SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS
Table 8.1 Percentage of Families Who Availed/Received Benefits/

Assistance/Payments in the Last 6 Months (January to June 2020)
by Type of Social Assistance Programs under Bayanihan to Heal
as One Act by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 116
xiv | List of Tables

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 8.2 Percentage of Families Who Availed/Received

Benefits/Assistance/Payments in the Last 6 Months (January to
June 2020) by Type of Social Assistance Programs by Region
Table 8.3 Families Who Had a Member/Beneficiary of Feeding Program
by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 118
Table 8.4 Families Who Had a Member and Availed/Received Benefits in
the Last 6 Months (January to June 2020) by Type of
Social Insurance Programs by Region and Residence:
Table 8.5 Families with Paying and Non-Paying Members of PhilHealth
by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 120
Table 8.6 Families Who Received Assistance from Different PhilHealth
Services by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 121
Table 8.7 Families Who Had Disaster Preparedness Kit and the Content
of Disaster Preparedness Kit by Region and Residence:
CHAPTER 9 - OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
Table 9.1 Families Who Availed of Loan from January to June 2020 by
Source of Loan and Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 128
Table 9.2 Percentage of Families Who Were Members of Cooperative by
Table 9.3 Respondents' Perception on How Safe Walking Alone in the
Community at Night, Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 130
Table 9.4 Respondents' Perception on How Safe from Sexual
Harassment in the Online/Workplaces/Educational/Training
Institutions at Any Time, Region and Residence: Philippines,
2020 131
List of Tables | xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
CHAPTER 2 - FAMILY SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY HEAD
Figure 2.1a Average Family Size: Philippines, 2020 APIS 8

Figure 2.2a Percentage Distribution of Family Heads by Age and Sex:
Philippines, 2020 APIS 8
Figure 2.3a Percentage of Family Heads by Educational Attainment:
CHAPTER 3 - HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Figure 3.1a Percentage Distribution of Families by Type of Building/House:

Figure 3.2a Percentage of Families Living in Houses with Strong Roof by
Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS 23
Figure 3.2b Percentage of Families Living in Houses with Strong Outer Walls
by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS 24
Figure 3.3a Percent Distribution of Families by Type of Building/House They
Reside in: Philippines, 2020 APIS 25
Figure 3.3b Percentage of Families Who Owned or Had Owner-like Possession
of House and Lot as Tenure Status of the Housing Unit
by Region: Philippine, 2020 APIS 25
Figure 3.4a Percent Distribution of Families by Floor Area of Housing Unit They
Occupy: Philippines, 2020 APIS 26
Figure 3.5a Percentage of Families Owning Household Conveniences:
Figure 3.6a Percentage of Families with Subscription to Cable, Broadband/
Fiber/DSL Internet, and Video Screaming Services in the Last 6
Months: Philippines, 2020 APIS 28
Figure 3.7a Percentage of Families Who Used Internet in the Last 6 Months by
Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS 29
Figure 3.8a Percentage of Families with Electricity in Residential House They:
xvi | List of Figures

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
CHAPTER 4 - WATER, SANITATION AND HANDWASHING FACILITY
Figure 4.1a Top Three Highest/Lowest Regions by Percentage of Families

with Basic Service Level Sanitation Facilities: Philippines,
2020 APIS 42
Figure 4.1b Percentage of Families by Service Level of Sanitation Facilities and
Residence: Philippines, 2020 APIS 43
with Basic Service Level of Handwashing Facilities: Philippines,
2020 APIS 45
Figure 4.2b Percentage of Families by Service Level of Handwashing Facilities
and Residence: Philippines, 2020 APIS 46
with Basic Service Level of Drinking Water Services: Philippines,
2020 APIS 48
Figure 4.3b Percentage of Families by Service Level of Drinking Water:
Figure 4.4a Percentage of Families with Main Source of Water Supply
is Piped into Dwelling by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS 51
CHAPTER 5 - EDUCATION
Figure 5.1a Percentage of Population Aged 5 Years or Over by Highest

Grade/Year Completed: Philippines, 2020 APIS 59
Figure 5.2a Percentage of Population Aged 3 to 24 Years by Schooling Status
Figure 5.2b Proportion of Population Aged 3 to 24 Years Who Were Attending
School by Selected Age Group: Philippines, 2020 APIS 61
Figure 5.2c Percentage of Population Aged 3 to 24 Years Who Were Attending
School by Current Grade/Year Level Attending: Philippines, 2020
APIS 62
Figure 5.3a Proportion of Population Aged 6 to 24 Years Who Were Not
Attending School by Reason for Not Attending: Philippines,
2020 APIS 63
Figure 5.3b Proportion of Population Aged 6 to 24 Years Who Were Not
Attending School by Reason for Not Attending by Region:
Figure 5.4a Proportion of Families with Children Aged 6 to 11 Years in
Grade 1 to 6 by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS 64
Figure 5.5a Proportion of Families with Children Aged 12 to 15 Years in Junior
High School Education (Grade 7 to 10) by Region: Philippines,
2020 APIS 65
List of Figures | xvii

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
CHAPTER 6 - EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Figure 6.1a Percentage of Population 11 to 24 Years Old Who Availed

Educational Service Contracting Program during Academic Year
2019-2020: Philippines, 2020 APIS 89
Figure 6.2a Percentage of Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Senior
Voucher Program during Academic Year 2019-2020: Philippines,
2020 APIS 90
Figure 6.2b Top Regions with Highest Percentage of Population 15 to 24 Years
Old Who Availed Senior High School Voucher Program during
Academic Year 2019-2020: Philippines, 2020 APIS 90
Figure 6.2c Percentage of Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Senior
High School Voucher Program during Academic Years 2019-2020
by Residence Status, Philippines, 2020 APIS 91
Figure 6.3a Percentage of Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Free
Tuition Tertiary Education Subsidy during Academic Year
2019- 2020: Philippines, 2020 APIS 92
CHAPTER 7 - HEALTH STATUS
Figure 7.1a Percentage of Family Members Who Got Ill/Sick/Injured in the

Past Month (June 2020) by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS 97
Figure 7.1b Percentage of Population 5 Years Old and Over Citing
Illness/Sickness or Injury as a Reason for Their Absence from Work
or School or for Not Being Able to Perform Daily Activities in the
Past Month (June 2020): Philippines, 2020 APIS 98
Figure 7.1c Percentage of Population 5 Years and Over Reporting on the
Number of Day/s that were Not Able to Go to Work or School nor
Perform Daily Activities Because of Their Illness/Sickness/Injury
during the Past Month: Philippines, 2020 APIS 99
Figure 7.2a Percentage of Children Aged 0 to 5 Years Old Who were Weighed
in the Past 12 Months Preceding the Survey, Philippines:
2020 APIS 100
Figure 7.2b Percentage of Children Aged 0 to 5 Years with Recorded Number
of Times Weighed During the Past 12 Months: Philippines, 2020
101
APIS
xviii | List of Figures

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
CHAPTER 8 - SOCIAL PROTECTION
Figure 8.1a Proportion of Filipino Families Who Received Benefits from Social
Amelioration Program (SAP) by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS 107
Figure 8.1b Proportion of Filipino Families Who Received Relief Assistance
from Government or Other than Government: Philippines,
2020 APIS 108
Figure 8.2a Regions with Highest Proportion of Families who Received
Assistance/Benefits from Regular Conditional Cash Transfer - 4Ps:
Figure 8.3a Proportion of Filipino Families Who Had Received of Feeding
Program: Philippines, 2020 APIS 110
Figure 8.4a Percentage of Families Who Had a Member/Dependent/
Beneficiary of Social Insurance Programs: Philippines, 2020 APIS 111
Figure 8.4b Regions with Highest and Lowest Proportion of Families with a
Member/Beneficiary in SSS and GSIS: Philippines, 2020 APIS 111
Figure 8.5a Proportion of Filipino Families with Paying and Non-
Paying Members of PhilHealth by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS 112
Figure 8.5b Most Availed PhilHealth Services from January to June 2020:
Figure 8.6a Families Who Had Disaster-Preparedness Kit and the Content
of Disaster-Preparedness Kit: Philippines, APIS 2020 114
CHAPTER 9 - OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
Figure 9.1a Percent Distribution of Families Who Availed of Loan from

January to June 2020: Philippines, 2020 APIS 124
Figure 9.2a Percentage of Families Who Were Members of Cooperative
Figure 9.3a Respondent’s Perception on How Safe Walking Alone in the
Community at Night is: Philippines, 2020 APIS 126
Figure 9.4a Respondent’s Perception on How Safe from Sexual Harassment in
the Online/Workplaces/Educational/Training Institutions is at Any
Time: Philippines, 2020 APIS 126
List of Figures | xix

MAP OF THE PHILIPPINES
xx | Map
Chapter 1 - BACKGROUND
The Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) 2020 is the fourteenth in a series of
poverty indicators survey conducted nationwide since 1998. The survey gathers data
that can be used to generate non-income indicators related to poverty that will be used
to assess and monitor non-income-based poverty situation in the country. It also
includes questions about access to drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene as
commitment to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 to monitor people’s access
to drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene. Moreover, data from this survey will serve
as input in the development of the Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI).
1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY
The APIS is designed to provide estimates for non-income indicators related to

poverty. This survey gathers data on the socio-economic profile of families and other
information that are related to their living conditions.
Specifically, it gathers information on indicators that are correlated with poverty in

order to determine the percent distribution of families in relation to the following
indicators:
a. owner-like possession of house and lot and the types of the materials of the
roofs, walls of their housing units and floor materials;
b. type of toilet and handwashing facility they use in their homes, main source of
water supply and source of drinking water;
c. presence of electricity and ownership of household conveniences;
d. used of internet and online transactions;
e. schooling status of 3 to 24 years old;
f. children 6-11 years old enrolled in Grade 1 to Grade 6;
g. children 12-17 years old enrolled in junior high school (Grade 7 to Grade 10);
h. educational assistance;
i. health status of family members;
j. who avail of loan/s and its sources;
k. who received and availed selected social protection programs; and
l. perception on feeling safe on community and other institutions.
Chapter 1 - BACKGROUND | 1
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY | 2020 ANNUAL POVERTY INDICATORS SURVEY
1.2 SAMPLING DESIGN
The 2013 Master Sample (2013 MS) was utilized for the 2020 APIS and other
household-based surveys conducted by PSA. The 2013 MS is designed to produce
reliable estimates of selected indicators at the national and regional levels.
In the 2013 MS, each sampling domain (i.e., province/HUC) is subdivided into
numbers of exhaustive and non-overlapping area segments known as Primary
Sampling Units (PSUs). Each PSU is formed to consist of about 100 to 400
households. A single PSU can be a barangay/Enumeration Area (EA) or a portion of
a large barangay or two or more adjacent small barangays/EAs. About 81 thousand
PSUs are formed from more than 42,000 barangays all over the country.
From the ordered list of PSUs, all possible systematic samples of six PSUs were drawn
to form a replicate for most of the province domain, that is, 75 out of 81 provinces. On
the other hand, for majority of highly urbanized cities, all possible systematic samples
of eight PSUs were drawn to form a replicate.
The 2020 APIS used four replicates of the quarterly sample of the MS or about 44,000
sample households deemed sufficient for regional estimates.
1.3 RESPONSE RATE
Of the 42,915 eligible sample households for the 2020 APIS, about 41,839 were
successfully interviewed. This translates to a response rate of 97.5 percent at the
national level. The response rate is the ratio of the total households who were
completely interviewed to the total eligible households. Eligible households consisted
of households who were completely interviewed, refused to be interviewed,
temporarily away, not at home or on vacation, and those located in critical or flooded
areas during the survey period.
1.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA
Data gathered from APIS are results of a sample survey and are therefore subject to
sampling variations, that is, sampling errors are expected since the data are not
obtained through complete enumeration or census.
The survey covered a national sample of households deemed sufficient to provide

estimates about the population at the regional level. Hence, tabulations and cross-
tabulations of variables at lower geographic levels are not generated since these may
not be statistically reliable.
2 | Chapter 1 - BACKGROUND
Like other surveys which seek financial information from individuals/households,

estimates from this survey may also be affected by non-sampling errors such as
deliberate under or over reporting of amount received from selected social protection
programs on the part of the respondents to reveal their true levels.
1.5 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Integrated Survey of Household (ISH)/APIS Form 2 is the survey questionnaire utilized

for this survey round. This is the first time for APIS round to use a combined
questionnaire with Labor Force Survey. However, for this report only the topics related
to APIS were presented. The questions or topics related to APIS are the following:
● GEOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION AND OTHER INFORMATION – pertains to the

region, province, city/municipality, barangay, address, result of visit and code,
names of household head and respondent, and the certification portion.
● DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL FAMILY MEMBERS - obtains

information of all family members such as name of family head, relationship to the
head, sex, age, and marital status.
● SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED - determines

whether a family member aged 3 to 24 years is currently attending formal school
and, if so, the grade or year the member is currently attending. If not attending,
then the reason for not attending school is asked. It also determines if the family
members aged 3 to 5 years old are attending/have attended early education or
learning system to assess their ‘school readiness’. It further determines the
educational attainment of the family members 5 years old and over.
● HEALTH STATUS - determines the health status of family members and whether
the illness/sickness/injury have been the reason for their absence from work or
school or not being able to perform daily activities one month preceding the
survey. Also, if the family members 0 to 5 years old were weighed during the past
12 months and its frequency during the past 12 months preceding the survey.
● EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE - determines the availment of educational

assistance by the family member 15 to 24 years old, particularly on the voucher
program for Senior High School and free tuition fee, tertiary education subsidy,
and student loan programs under the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary
Education (UAQTE).
● SOCIAL PROTECTION - obtains information about selected social protection

programs that the families availed during the past 6 months prior to this survey. It
also includes the selected social amelioration programs under the Bayanihan to
Heal as One Act to provide assistance to Filipino families amidst the Coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Social protection is defined as consisting of
policies and programs that seek to reduce poverty and vulnerability to risks, and
enhance the social status and rights of the marginalized by promoting and
protecting their livelihood and employment, protecting them against hazards and
sudden interruptions, loss of income, and improving people’s capacity to manage
risks. There are four main components of social protection – social insurance,
social assistance, labor market interventions, and social safety nets.1
● ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT SERVICES – gathers data aimed to further

enhance the established empirical baseline on the extent or pervasiveness of
corruption in the country.
● HOUSING, WATER, SANITATION, AND HYGIENE - obtains information about

the family’s housing characteristics and conveniences/amenities owned by the
family including the main source of water supply and kind of toilet and
handwashing facility they used. Also, to determine if families use the internet and
online transaction.
● OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION – includes the following information:

whether or not the family made use of any form of credit in financing the family’s
needs, and the source of the loan; how safe to walk alone in one’s community,
and from sexual harassment in other establishments/institutions.
1.6 CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
● RESPONDENT - is the head of the family or his/her spouse or any responsible

adult family member who can provide accurate answers to all or most of the
questions in the survey.
● FAMILY - composed of persons bound by ties of kinship, who live together under
the same roof and eat together or share in common the family food.
● FAMILY HEAD - an adult member of the family who is responsible for the care
and organization of the family or who is regarded as such by the members of the
family.
1
This is based on the official definition from SDC Resolution No. 1 Series of 2007 which was adopted in the Philippine Social
Protection Operational Framework and Strategy by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and NEDA-SDC-
Subcommittee on Social Protection (SC-SP) version February 2019.
● HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT - the highest grade or year completed

in school, college, or university.
● FLOOR AREA - the area enclosed by the exterior walls of the housing unit. In
case of several floors, the area of the housing unit is the sum of areas of all floors.
● PROPORTION OF FAMILIES WITH OWNED OR OWNER-LIKE POSSESSION

OF HOUSING UNITS - the ratio of the number of families with housing unit owned
or amortized to the total number of families.
● PROPORTION OF FAMILIES WITH HOUSES MADE OF STRONG MATERIALS

- the ratio of the number of families with houses having roofs and outer walls made
of strong materials. For this survey, strong materials of roof refer to galvanized
iron/aluminum, concrete/clay tile and half galvanized iron and half concrete while
strong materials or outer wall refer to concrete/brick/stone, half
concrete/brick/stone/and half wood and galvanized iron/aluminum.
● PROPORTION OF FAMILIES WITH ELECTRICITY IN THE HOUSE/BUILDING

THEY RESIDE IN AND ACCESS TO IMPROVED WATER SUPPLY - the ratio of
the number of families with electricity in the house they reside; and the ratio of
families with access to improved water supply or water from community water
system (piped into their dwelling, yard/plot or public tap) and protected wells to
the total number of families.
● PROPORTION OF FAMILIES OWNING HOUSEHOLD CONVENIENCES - the

ratio of the number of families owning household conveniences such as
car/jeep/van, motorcycle/tricycle, motorized boat/banca, tractor, washing
machine, gas range/stove with oven, induction stove, refrigerator/freezer,
personal computer/desktop/laptop/netbook/, aircon, cellular phone
telephone/landline, videoke/magic sing, television, cable, radio, broadband
internet/fiber internet/dsl and draft animals (cow/carabao/horse) to the total
number of families.
● PROPORTION OF FAMILIES WITH SANITATION FACILITY - the ratio of the

number of families with improved toilet/sanitation facility. Improved sanitation
facilities are those designed to hygienically separate excreta from human contact.
These include wet sanitation technologies (flush and pour flush toilets connecting
to sewers, septic tanks, or pit latrines) and dry sanitation technologies (ventilated
improved pit latrines; pit latrines with slabs; or composting toilets)
● PROPORTION OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN 6-11 YEARS OLD IN

GRADE 1 TO GRADE 6 - the ratio of the number of families with children
6-11 years old attending Grade 1 to Grade 6 to the total number of families with
children 6-11 years old.
● PROPORTION OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN 12-15 YEARS OLD IN JUNIOR

HIGH SCHOOL (GRADE 7 TO GRADE 10) - the ratio of the number of families
with children 12-15 years old attending Junior High School to the total number of
families with children 12-15 years old.
● PROPORTION OF FAMILIES WITH MEMBERS 5-17 YEARS OLD WHO ARE

WORKING - the ratio of the number of families with children 5-17 years old who
are working to the total number of families with children 5-17 years old.
Chapter 2 - FAMILY SIZE AND

CHARACTERISTICS OF
FAMILY HEAD
KEY FINDINGS
On average, a family consisted of 4.2 family members.
Among regions, Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim

Mindanao (BARMM) had the highest average family size with 6.1
family members.
Families residing in rural areas had a higher average family size

(4.3 family members) in comparison to families residing in urban
areas (4.1 family members).
Three out of four families were headed by males (75.9%), while

the remaining 24.1 percent were headed by females.
More than half (54.2%) of female family heads were 55 years old
or over, higher than the proportion (33.0%) of male family heads
aged 55 years or over.
In terms of family heads’ education, about 28.1 percent were

junior high school graduate or high school graduate while
11.9 percent were college graduate or higher.
The top three regions which had the highest percentage of family
heads with college degree or higher level of education were
National Capital Region (NCR) (19.7%), Cordillera
Administrative Region (CAR) (16.2%), and Region II-Cagayan
Valley (14.4%).
Chapter 2 - FAMILY SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY HEAD | 7

2.1 AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE
As of July 2020, the estimated

number of families was 25.8 million
with an average family size of 4.2
persons. Among regions, BARMM
had the highest average family size
with 6.1, followed by Region V-Bicol
with 4.6 and Region IX-Zamboanga
Peninsula with 4.4. Region XI-Davao
had the lowest average family size
with 3.9, followed by CALABARZON
(4.0) and NCR (4.0). By residence,
rural areas had 4.3 average family
size as compared to urban areas with
4.1. (Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1a)
2.2 AGE AND SEX OF FAMILY HEAD
In the Philippines, there were more families headed by males than females.
The survey results show that 75.9 percent of the total families were headed by males
and the remaining 24.1 percent were headed by females.
More than half (54.2%) of female family heads were 55 years old or over while 33.0
percent of male family heads belonged to the same age group. On the other hand,
higher proportion was reported among male family heads (64.8%) than female family
heads (43.6%) for age-groups 25 to 54 years old. (Table 2.2)
Figure 2.2a. Percentage Distribution of Family Heads by Age-Group and Sex:

Philippines, 2020 APIS
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority, 2020 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey
8 | Chapter 2 - FAMILY SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY HEAD

2.3 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF FAMILY HEAD
Two in every seven family heads (28.1%) completed junior high school education at
most. Meanwhile, about 14.8 percent finished elementary education and about
11.9 percent completed college or higher levels of education (Table 2.2 and
Figure 2.3a).
Figure 2.3a. Percentage of Family Heads by Educational Attainment: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
The survey also showed that a higher proportion of female heads (16.9%) were college
degree holder or with higher level of education as compared with male heads (10.3%).
Across regions, NCR (19.7%), CAR (16.2%), and Region II-Cagayan Valley (14.4%)
had the highest percentage of family heads with college degree or higher level of
education. On the other hand, BARMM (5.2%), Region III-Central Luzon (8.3%), and
Region V-Bicol (8.7%) had the lowest percentage of family heads with college degree
or higher.
As to residence, more urban residents (16.2%) had college graduate or higher

education than rural residents (7.3%). On the other hand, more rural residents (18.8%)
were only elementary graduate education than urban residents (11.0%). This pattern
holds true for both the male and female population.
List of Tables:
▪ Table 2.1 Average Family Size by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 2.2 Families by Selected Background Characteristics of the Family Head by Region, Residence,
and Sex: Philippines, 2020












Chapter 3 - HOUSING
CHARACTERISTICS
KEY FINDINGS
TENURE STATUS OF HOUSING UNIT:

Almost three in every five families (59.8%) owned the house and lot they
occupied.
FLOOR AREA OF HOUSING UNIT:

Almost two in every three families (65.9%) were residing in a housing unit
with a floor area of less than 50 square meters (sq. m.).
TYPE OF BUILDING/HOUSE:
Nine in every ten families lived in single type of housing unit (90.3%).
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF ROOF AND OUTER WALLS:

Majority of Filipino houses had roof (95.5%) and outer walls (73.4%) made
of strong materials.
ELECTRICITY:
About 94.5 percent of families in the country had electricity in their home.
HOUSEHOLD CONVENIENCES:
Cellular phone was the most common household convenience/device
which was present in nine out of ten (90.5%) Filipino homes.
INTERNET USAGE:
Two in every five families (41.1%) used the internet in the last six months
(January to June 2020).
ONLINE TRANSACTIONS:
Online buying transactions was the most common online transaction
made using the internet by families with 42.2 percent, followed by bills
payment (16.1%), and banking (12.7%).
Chapter 3 – HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS | 21

The data on family’s housing characteristics can indicate the health and economic
well-being of families. This chapter presents the type of building or house, the
construction materials of the roof and outer walls, tenure status of housing unit and
lot, the floor area of housing unit, household conveniences owned, subscription to
cable, broadband, video streaming services, internet usage, and online transactions
made.
3.1 TYPE OF BUILDING/HOUSE
Majority of the families resided in a single type of building/housing unit (90.3%).

The rest of the families dwelt in apartment/accessoria/rowhouse (6.7%), duplex
houses (1.9%), and other multi-unit residential building or commercial/industrial/
agricultural building/house, including condominium/condotel (1.1%) (Table 3.1 and
Figure 3.1a).
Figure 3.1a. Percentage Distribution of Families by Type of Residential Building/House:

All regions posted higher than 90.3 percent of families residing in single type housing
units, except in NCR (79.4%) and its nearby regions of CALABARZON (75.4%) and
Region III-Central Luzon (86.1%). These regions had the highest percentage of
families residing in apartment/accessoria/rowhouse; that is, 20.4 percent in
CALABARZON, 12.0 percent in Central Luzon, and 11.9 percent in NCR.
By place of residence, the proportion of families residing in a single house type is

higher in rural areas (98.2%) than in urban areas (82.9%). Conversely, the proportion
of families living in apartment/accessoria/rowhouse was higher in urban areas (12.3%)
than in rural areas (0.8%) (Table 3.1).
22 | Chapter 3 – HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

3.2 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF ROOF AND OUTER

WALLS
About 95.5 percent of Filipino families were reported to live in houses made of strong
materials. For this survey, strong materials of the roof refer to galvanized
iron/aluminum, concrete/clay tile and half galvanized iron and half concrete while
strong materials for outer walls refer to concrete/brick/stone, half concrete/brick/stone
and half wood and galvanized iron/aluminum.
For the materials of the roof of the housing unit, majority of the families (93.5%)
reported having galvanized iron/aluminum roof material. A small percentage of families
used other materials of the roof like cogon/nipa/anahaw (3.6%) and concrete/clay tile
(1.1%). For the materials of the outer walls, three out of five families had
concrete/brick/stone (60.1%), followed by wood (13.3%), and half-concrete/brick/
stone and half-wood (12.6%) (Table 3.2 and 3.3).
Across regions, CAR recorded the highest proportion of families living in houses with
strong materials for the roof (99.4%), while NCR had the highest proportion with strong
materials for the outer walls (92.1%). On the other hand, Region V-Bicol (80.0%), and
BARMM (34.8%) had the lowest proportion of families living in houses with strong
materials of the roof and outer walls, respectively (Figures 3.2a and 3.2b).
Figure 3.2a. Percentage of Families Living in Houses with Strong Roof by Region:
(in percent)
Chapter 3 - HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS | 23

Figure 3.2b. Percentage of Families Living in Houses with Strong Outer Walls by Region:
(in percent)
By place of residence, the percentage of urban families (95.1%) living in houses with
galvanized iron/aluminum roof was higher than that of rural families (91.7%). On the
other hand, the percentage of rural families (6.0%) living in houses with roof made of
cogon/nipa/anahaw was higher than that of urban families (1.3%).
For the type of outer walls of the housing units, concrete/brick/stone walls were more
popularly used by families residing in urban areas (69.3%) than among those in rural
areas (50.3%). On the other hand, bamboo/sawali/cogon/nipa walls were common in
housing units in rural areas (18.3%) compared to those in urban areas (6.3%). There
were also higher percentage of families occupying housing units having wood as outer
walls in rural (17.0%) than in urban (9.9%) areas.
3.3 TENURE STATUS OF HOUSING UNIT AND LOT
In 2020, about three in every five families (59.8%) owned the house and lot they
occupied. About 15.8 percent of families occupied a house they owned in rent-free lot
with consent of the owner, 10.2 percent rented the house/room including lot, and 9.3
percent occupied a rent-free house and lot with consent of owner. The rest either
owned the house but the lot was rent-free without consent of the owner (2.8%), owned
the house but the lot was rented (1.8%), or with rent-free house and lot without consent
of owner (0.3%) (Table 3.4 and Figure 3.3a).

Figure 3.3a. Percent Distribution of Families by Type of Building/House They Reside in:
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority, 2020 Annual Poverty Indicators Surveys
Across regions, the top three with highest percentage of families who owned the house
and lot they occupied were Region II-Cagayan Valley (84.4%), CAR (77.6%), and
Region III-Central Luzon (77.5%). On the other hand, NCR (44.3%), Region VI-
Western Visayas (47.0%), and BARMM (51.0%) had the lowest percentage of families
who owned the house and lot they lived. Families who rented the house and lot that
they occupied were highest in NCR (31.3%) and CALABARZON (19.0%) (Table 3.4
and Figure 3.3b).
Figure 3.3b. Percentage of Families Who Own or Has Owner-like Possession of House and
Lot as Tenure Status of the Housing Unit by Region: Philippine, 2020 APIS
(in percent)

More rural residents (65.5%) owned their house and lot compared with urban residents
(54.5%), while a higher percentage of urban residents (18.0%) rented the house and
lot they occupied as compared to rural residents (1.9%). Those who owned their house
on rent-free land with consent of the owner was higher in rural (20.9%) than in urban
(11.1%) areas.
3.4 FLOOR AREA OF HOUSING UNIT
About two in every three families (65.9%) were residing in a housing unit with a floor
area of less than 50 square meter (sq. m.). The remaining 34.1 percent of families
lived in housing unit with floor area of 50 square meters and higher (Table 3.5 and
Figure 3.4a).
Figure 3.4a. Percent Distribution of Families by Floor Area of Housing Unit They Occupy:
The three regions with the highest percentage of families with floor area less than 50
square meters were SOCCSKSARGEN (83.7%), Region XI-Davao (82.5%), and
BARMM (77.4%). Meanwhile, six out of 17 regions had higher percentage of families
living in housing unit with floor area of at least 200 square meters than the national
level: Caraga (5.9%), CAR (3.9%), MIMAROPA Region (3.7%), Region VIII-Eastern
Visayas (3.7%), CALABARZON (3.3%), and NCR (2.7%).
In terms of place of residence, higher percentage of families in rural areas (67.3%)

occupied housing unit with less than 10 to 49 square-meter-floor-area than those in
urban areas (63.6%). Across the floor-area-ranges, almost similar percentage
distribution was observed between urban and rural except for 10 to 29 and 50 to 79
square meters where the percentage point difference was 3.6 percent and 2.0 percent,
respectively.

3.5 HOUSEHOLD CONVENIENCES
In the 2020 APIS, households were asked for the presence of household
conveniences/devices used by household members. Cellular phone was the most
common household convenience/device as reported by nine out of 10 (90.5%) Filipino
homes, followed by Television set (79.8%), refrigerator/freezer (45.7%), washing
machine (44.2%), and motorcycle/tricycle (42.7%) (Table 3.6 and Figure 3.5a).
Figure 3.5a. Percentage of Families Owning Household Conveniences:

Out of the 20 household conveniences listed, NCR had the highest percent ownership
in 12 out of 20 listed household conveniences, namely: e-trike, washing machine,
stove with oven/gas range, induction stove, refrigerator/freezer, personal computer,
aircon, cellular phone, landline/wireless telephone, microwave/ oven toaster,
videoke/magic sing, and television.
Families in urban areas had higher percentage of ownership for all household
conveniences than those in rural areas, except for motorcycle/tricycle, radio, draft
animals, motorized boat/banca, and tractor.

3.6 SUBSCRIPTION TO CABLE, BROADBAND INTERNET, AND

VIDEO STREAMING SERVICES
About 22.9 percent of families had subscription to cable network (e.g., Sky Cable,
Destiny, Cignal, etc.), while 14.6 percent of families had subscription to broadband
internet, fiber internet/DSL, and 5.2 percent of families had subscription to video
streaming services (e.g., Netflix, iflix, Hooq, iWantv, etc.) (Table 3.7 and Figure 3.6a).
Figure 3.6a. Percentage of Families with Subscription to Cable, Broadband/Fiber/DSL

Internet and Video Screaming Services in the Last 6 Months: Philippines, 2020 APIS
Among regions, MIMAROPA had the highest subscription to cable network with 47.7
percent, followed by Region VIII-Eastern Visayas (46.4%), and Caraga (42.2%)
regions. Further, NCR had the highest percentage of families with subscription to
broadband internet (30.4%) and video streaming services (11.0%).
The percentage of families who subscribed to broadband internet and video streaming
services was higher in urban areas (21.6% and 7.5%, respectively) than in rural areas
(7.2% and 2.7%). In contrast, subscription in cable network of families from rural areas
(27.1%) was higher than those from urban area (19.0%) (Table 3.7).
3.7 INTERNET AND ONLINE TRANSACTIONS
About two in every five families (41.1%) used the internet in the last six months
(January to June 2020). NCR (66.6 %) had the highest percentage of families who
used the internet, followed by CALABARZON (62.9%). On the other hand, BARMM
(10.3 %) posted the lowest percentage of families using the internet (Table 3.8 and
Figure 3.7a).

Figure 3.7a. Percentage of Families Who Used Internet in the Last 6 Months by Region:
More than half of families who lived in urban areas (52.6%) used the internet in the
last 6 months, while only 28.8 percent of those in rural areas did.
Nationwide, online buying transaction using the internet (42.2 %) was the most
common online transaction made by the families, followed by bills payment (16.1%),
and banking (12.7%).
3.8 ELECTRICITY
About 94.5 percent of families in the country had electricity in their homes. Among the
regions, CALABARZON registered the highest proportion of families with electricity in
their homes (98.4%). This was followed by families residing in NCR and
Region I-Ilocos (both with 98.1%). On the other hand, BARMM (84.1 %) registered the
lowest proportion of families with electricity supply, followed by Region IX-Zamboanga
Peninsula (86.3%) (Table 3.9).

Figure 3.8a. Percentage of Families with Electricity in Residential House by Region:

By place of residence, the percentage of urban families (96.6%) living in houses

with electricity was higher than that of rural families (92.3%).
List of Tables:
▪ Table 3.1 Families by Type of Building/House They Reside by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 3.2 Families by Type of Construction Materials of the Roof by Region and Residence: Philippines,
2020
▪ Table 3.3 Families by Type of Construction Materials of the Outer Walls by Region and Residence:
Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 3.4 Families by Tenure Status of the Housing Unit and Lot They Occupy by Region and
Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 3.5 Families by Floor Area of Housing Unit They Occupy by Region and Residence: Philippines,
2020
▪ Table 3.6 Families Ownership of Household Conveniences by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 3.7 Families Who Had Subscribed to Cable, Broadband/Fiber/DSL Internet and Video Screaming
Services by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 3.8 Families Who Used Internet and Made Online Transactions in the Last 6 Months by Region
and Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 3.9 Families with Electricity in House/Building They Reside in, Main Source of Water Supply by
Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020








Table 3.7. Families Who Had Subscribed to Cable, Broadband/Fiber/DSL Internet and Video Screaming Services by Region and
Subscription (Percentage)
Number of
Families Video Streaming
Region/Residence Cable
(Total, Broadband Internet Services (e.g.
(e.g. Sky Cable,
in thousands) Destiny Cignal, etc.) Fiber Internet/DSL Netflix/Iflix/Hooq/
Iwant/Viu, etc.)
PHILIPPINES 25,848 22.9 14.6 5.2

National Capital Region 3,449 15.3 30.4 11.0
Cordillera Administrative Region 439 39.0 12.9 2.9
Region I - Ilocos 1,252 12.8 13.2 6.7
Region II - Cagayan Valley 883 40.6 11.8 1.7

Region III - Central Luzon 2,923 11.3 14.5 4.3
Region IV-A - CALABARZON 3,970 15.4 20.7 7.0
MIMAROPA Region 770 47.7 7.8 2.3
Region V - Bicol 1,319 28.6 8.3 4.3
Region VI - Western Visayas 1,907 21.7 9.5 3.0
Region VII - Central Visayas 1,927 20.3 11.0 3.4
Region VIII - Eastern Visayas 1,108 46.4 9.0 2.3
Region IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 863 37.3 5.3 5.4
Region X - Northern Mindanao 1,168 25.8 12.2 3.9
Region XI - Davao 1,356 20.5 10.1 3.6
Region XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 1,181 29.2 9.0 3.2
Region XIII - Caraga 649 42.2 9.3 2.1
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region 683 26.8 1.7 3.6
In Muslim Mindanao
Residence
Urban 13,332 19.0 21.6 7.5
Rural 12,516 27.1 7.2 2.7
Note: Families may owned different household convenience. Percentages do not add up to 100.


WATER, SANITATION
Chapter 4 -
AND HANDWASHING FACILITY
KEY FINDINGS
SANITATION:
About four out of five families (80.4%) had a basic sanitation service level
or used an improved sanitation facility not shared with another
household.
HANDWASHING FACILITY:
Nine in every 10 (90.6%) of the 26 million Filipino families had a hand
washing facility, mainly in the form of fixed facility with sink/tap (66.7%)
in the dwelling unit, fixed facility with sink/tap in the yard plot (11.3%),
and mobile object (12.6%).
DRINKING WATER:
Majority of families had an improved source of drinking water (97.5%),
with almost half of which were refilling stations (47.8%), and one-fifth
came from water piped into dwelling unit (20.3%).
MAIN SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY:

Majority of Filipino families’ main source of water supply were piped into
dwelling (54.1%). However, around one percent (0.7%) of families still
rely on natural sources such as rivers, streams, pond, lake or dam and
from the rain.
This chapter presents the information which is related to Sustainable Development

Goals (SDG) indicator 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). In particular, the data pertaining
to goals 6.1 (achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking
water for all, drinking water has been classified according to service levels), and 6.2
(achieving access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and ending
open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those
in vulnerable situations) were assessed and monitored. The estimates presented in
this report are for basic service level of drinking water and sanitation only, not the
safety managed service level.
Chapter 4 - WATER, SANITATION AND HANDWASHING FACILITY | 41

4.1 SANITATION FACILITY
Goal 6.2 of the SDG is about achieving access to adequate and equitable sanitation
and hygiene for all and ending open defecation, paying special attention to the needs
of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations. In consonance with the SDG
monitoring, sanitation has been classified according to service levels, namely: Safely
Managed; Basic; Limited; Unimproved; and Open defecation (The WHO/UNICEF JMP
Report, 2017).
Improved sanitation facilities are those designed to hygienically separate excreta from
human contact. These include the following: flush/pour flush to piped sewer systems,
septic tanks or pit latrines; ventilated improved pit latrines, composting toilets or pit
latrines with slabs.
In 2020, about four out of five families

(80.4%) had a basic sanitation service
level or used an improved sanitation
facility not shared with another household.
Moreover, about one out of 10 families
(13.5%) had a limited-service level, or
equivalent to using an improved sanitation
facility but shared with two or more
households. The remaining 3.5 percent
families with no sanitation facility practice
open defecation, and 2.6 percent families
had an unimproved service level
(Table 4.1).
The top three regions with the highest

percentage of families with basic service
sanitation facilities were Cagayan Valley
(87.5%), CALABARZON (87.4%), and
Region III-Central Luzon (87.2%).
On the other hand, the three regions with
the lowest percentage of families were
BARMM (39.3%), Region XI-Davao
(72.0%), and SOCCSKSARGEN (72.5%).
In addition, BARMM had the highest percentage of families with unimproved service
level facilities (24.4%) and families practicing open defecation with no toilet facility
(19.6%) (Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1a).
Urban (80.9%) and rural (79.9%) areas had almost similar proportion of families with
access to basic sanitation facility. Urban area coverage with 15.7 percent of families
42 | Chapter 4 - WATER, SANITATION AND HANDWASHING FACILITY

using limited sanitation facility was higher than that in rural areas at 11.2 percent. On
the contrary, the number of rural families practicing open defecation (5.6%) was higher
than that of urban families (1.6%) (Table 4.2 and Figure 4.1b).
Figure 4.1b. Percentage of Families by Service Level of Sanitation Facility

and Residence: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
Sanitation Service Levels
BASIC
Use of improved facilities which are not shared with other households
LIMITED
Use of improved facilities shared between two or more households
UNIMPROVED
Use of pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines or bucket latrines
OPEN DEFECATION
Disposal of human faeces in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches and other
open spaces or with solid waste
Improved sanitation facilities are those designed to hygienically separate excreta from human
contact. These include the following: flush/pour flush to piped sewer systems, septic tanks, or
pit latrines; ventilated improved pit latrines, composting toilets, or pit latrines with slabs.
Disposal and treatment of excreta were not very common within household levels or that the
families were not aware how the excreta were treated, whether on site or transported and treated
offsite. Hence, families using improved sanitation facilities were not classified as to using or not
using safely managed sanitation services.


4.2 HANDWASHING
Nine in every 10 (90.6%) of the 26 million

Filipino families had a hand washing
facility, mainly in the form of fixed facility
with sink/tap (66.7%) in the dwelling unit,
fixed facility with sink/tap in yard/plot
(11.3%), and mobile object such as
bucket/jug/kettle (12.6%). Among those
with available handwashing facility,
majority had available water (97.3%),
and provision of bar/liquid soap (87.8%)
and/or detergent soap (37.8%) in hand
washing (Table 4.3).
By type of handwashing service level,

most families (92.1%) had access to
basic handwashing facilities or
handwashing facilities on premises with
soap and water (Table 4.4 and
Figure 4.2a).
Across regions, NCR (97.4%) had the

highest percentage of families with
access to basic service handwashing
facilities, followed by CAR (97.2%), and
Region II-Cagayan Valley (95.8%)
(Table 4.4 and Figure 4.2a).
Regions with the lowest percentage of families with access to basic handwashing were
Region XI-Davao (88.7%), SOCCSKSARGEN (85.3%), and BARMM (82.7%)
By residence status, about 93.3 percent of families in urban areas had available basic
service handwashing facilities which was closely followed by 91.1 percent of families
in rural areas. Meanwhile, those with limited-service level handwashing facilities was
noted in 3.4 percent of families in urban areas and 4.1 percent of families in rural
areas. Further, about 3.4 percent of families had no handwashing facility in urban
areas while 4.8 percent in rural areas (Table 4.4 and Figure 4.2b).

Figure 4.2b. Percentage of Families by Service Level of Handwashing Facilities

(in percent)
Handwashing Service Levels
BASIC
Availability of a handwashing facility on premises with soap and water
LIMITED
Availability of a handwashing facility on premises without soap and water
NO FACILITY
No handwashing facility on premises


4.3 DRINKING WATER
In 2020, majority of families had an

improved source of drinking water (97.5%),
with almost half of which were refilling
stations (47.8%), and one-fifth came from
water piped into dwelling unit (20.3%).
On the sufficiency of drinking water,

majority of families reported that drinking
water was sufficient (91.3%). However,
four in every five families (80.2%) did not
practice any method or treatment in
ensuring that drinking water is safe to
drink. (Table 4.5)
About nine in every ten families (93.9%)

had basic service level with drinking water
from an improved source with roundtrip
collection time not more than 30 minutes.
(Table 4.6)
Across regions, NCR (99.4%) had the

highest percentage of families which had
access to basic service level of drinking
water, followed by Region I-Ilocos (98.4%), and Region III-Central Luzon (97.4%)
Regions with lesser access to basic service level were BARMM (73.3%),
Region IX-Zamboanga Peninsula (86.0%), and Region VII-Central Visayas (88.8%).
Consequently, BARMM had the highest percentage of families with access to non-
basic service level of drinking water, namely, limited-service level (8.3%), unimproved
service level (15.2%), and surface water (3.2%). (Table 4.6 and Figure 4.3a)
Percentage of families with basic drinking water service level in urban areas (96.9%)
was higher than in rural areas (90.6%). The reverse is true for families with limited-
service level of which rural area coverage (4.0%) was higher than that in urban areas
(1.7%). Likewise, those with unimproved service level in rural areas (5.1%) were
higher than in urban areas (1.4%) (Table 4.6 and Figure 4.3b).

Figure 4.3b. Percentage of Families by Service Level of Drinking Water:

(in percent)
Drinking Water Service Levels
SAFELY MANAGED
Drinking water from an improved water source which is located on premises, available when
needed and free from faecal and priority chemical contamination.
In this 2020 APIS, water quality testing of drinking water was not conducted, hence, families
using safety managed drinking water were not classified.
BASIC
Drinking water from an improved source, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes
for a roundtrip including queuing.
LIMITED
Drinking water from an improved source for which collection time exceeds 30 minutes for a
roundtrip including queuing.
UNIMPROVED
Drinking water from an unprotected dug well or unprotected spring.
SURFACE WATER
Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal or irrigation canal.
Improved drinking water sources as those that have potential to deliver safe water by nature of
their design and construction. However, an improved water source does not guarantee that the
water will be safe for drinking. Improved water sources include piped water, boreholes or
tubewells, protected dug wells, protected springs, rainwater, and packaged or delivered water.
Families that use bottled water or refilling stations for drinking are classified as using an
improved source only if the water they use for cooking and handwashing comes from an
improved source.


4.4 MAIN SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY
More than half of Filipino families’ main source of water supply were piped into dwelling
(54.1%), followed by protected well (21.5%), and piped into yard or plot (7.4%). Around
one percent (0.7%) of families still rely on natural sources such as rivers, streams,
pond, lake or dam and from the rain. By region, the proportion of the Filipino families
whose main source of water supply were piped into dwelling ranges from the least of
8.7 percent in BARMM to the highest of 92.6 percent in NCR (Table 3.9 and Figure
4.4a).
Figure 4.4a. Percentage of Families with Main Source of Water Supply

is Piped into Dwelling by Region: Philippines, 2020
Results also showed that majority of Filipino families residing in urban residences
(73.8%) had their main source of water supply as piped into dwelling, in contrast to
families residing in rural residences, with only 33.0 percent. Moreover, another 32.5
percent of Filipino families in rural residences had protected well as their main source
of water supply.
List of Tables:
▪ Table 4.1 Percentage of Families by Sanitation Facilities, According to their Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 4.2 Percentage of Families by Service Level of Sanitation Facilities, According to their Region and
▪ Table 4.3 Percentage of Families in which Handwashing Facilities and Availability of Water and Soap were
Observed, According to their Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 4.4 Percentage of Families by Service Level in which Handwashing Facilities was Observed,
According to their Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 4.5 Percentage of Families by Source of Drinking Water, Treatment of Drinking Water, Sufficiency
of Water, and Time to Obtain Drinking Water, According to their Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 4.6 Percentage of Families by Service Level of Drinking Water, According to their Region and







Chapter 5 - EDUCATION
KEY FINDINGS
HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED (5 YEARS OLD AND OVER):

About 21.2 percent of population 5 years old and over finished high school or
junior high school and 11.3 percent had a college degree or higher, with higher
percentage among females (13.6%) than males (9.0%).
Across regions, NCR had the highest proportion for college graduate or higher
with 17.5 percent followed by Cordillera Administrative Region (15.7%) and
Region II-Cagayan Valley (15.4%).
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (3 TO 24 YEARS OLD):

About two in every three persons (68.3%) aged 3 to 24 years old were enrolled
or attending school in SY 2020-2021.
Top three regions with higher proportion of school attendance were observed
in Region VIII-Eastern Visayas (72.7%), MIMAROPA Region (72.5%), and
Caraga (72.0%).
About 28.0 percent of those attending school were enrolled in junior high
school or Grades 7 to 10, 22.0 percent in Grades I to III, 11.8 percent in senior
high school or Grades 11 to 12, and 11.3 percent in college.
REASON FOR NOT ATTENDING SCHOOL (6 TO 24 YEARS OLD):

The top reasons for not attending school in the past year were employment
(22.2%), marriage (15.0%), finished schooling or finished post-secondary/
college (14.6%), high cost of education/financial concern (11.9%), and reasons
due to Covid-19 pandemic (9.6%).
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN (6 TO 11 YEARS OLD) IN GRADE 1 TO GRADE 6:

About 86.9 percent of families with children 6 to 11 years old were attending
Grade 1 to Grade 6. Top regions with highest proportion were in MIMAROPA
(89.5%), Region V-Bicol (89.0%), and Region VII-Central Visayas (88.5%).
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN (12 TO 15 YEARS OLD) IN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL:

About 68.5 percent of families with children 12 to 15 years old were attending
Junior High School (Grades 7 to 10). MIMAROPA Region reported the highest
percentage of families with children 12 to 15 years old who were attending
junior high school at 75.5 percent while BARMM recorded the lowest
percentage at 46.1 percent.
58 | Chapter 5 - EDUCATION
This chapter presents the highest grade completed, school attendance, and the
reason for not attending school. In addition, the proportion of those who were currently
attending early childhood education learning, aged 6 to 11 years old in Grade 1 to
Grade 6 and aged 12 to 17 years old attending Junior High School will be presented.
5.1 HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED OF POPULATION FIVE

YEARS OLD AND OVER
In 2020, about 11.3 percent of the population aged 5 years old and over had a college
degree or higher. Females tend to have higher completion of a college degree or
higher (13.6%) compared to males (9.0%). About one out of five (21.2%) had
completed junior high school, followed by 20.7 percent who were elementary
undergraduates, and the least had no grade completed (2.3 %) (Table 5.1 and Figure
5.1a).
Figure 5.1a. Percentage of Population Aged 5 Years or Over by Highest Grade/Year

Completed: Philippines, 2020 APIS
Across regions, NCR had the highest proportion of college graduate or higher at 17.5
percent, followed by CAR (15.7%) and Region II-Cagayan Valley (15.4%).
As to residence status, population five years and over residing in urban areas (14.2%)
reported higher percentage of college graduate or higher than those in rural areas
(8.4%). The same pattern was observed among junior high school graduates in urban
areas (23.6%) and rural areas. (18.8%) (Table 5.1).
Chapter 5 - EDUCATION | 59
5.2 ATTENDANCE IN SCHOOL OF PERSONS 3 TO 24 YEARS OLD
This section presents the percentage of persons 3 to 24 years old who attended a
regular educational institution, public or private, or home school to obtain formal
education in School Year (SY) 2020 to 2021. It also included early childhood education
learning programs like nursery, kindergarten, and preparatory schools. School refers
to formal schools, including vocational/technical schools offering post-secondary
courses to obtain formal education.
Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, the Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) for the
Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases approved the Basic Education Learning
Continuity Plan (BE-LCP) of the Department of Education (DepEd) to move the school
opening for SY 2020-2021 on 24 August 2020 to 05 October 2020. Thus, those
persons whose school year started on August were considered currently attending
school for SY 2020-2021 if they had an intention to enroll or to pursue their studies
during the interview.
Overall, about two in every three (68.3%) persons aged 3 to 24 years old were enrolled
or attending school in SY 2020-2021. Top three regions with higher proportion of
school attendance were observed in Region VIII-Eastern Visayas (72.7%),
MIMAROPA (72.5%), and Caraga (72.0%). Conversely, BARMM (63.7%), Region I-
Ilocos (65.0%), and Region II-Cagayan Valley (65.2%) had the lowest proportion of
school attendance. (Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2a)
As to residence, rural areas (69.2%) had higher proportion of population aged 3 to 24

years old who were enrolled or attending school as compared to urban areas (67.4%).
This is consistent with the strict imposition of restrictions in social gatherings and
meetings brought by COVID-19 more often in urban areas than in rural areas. By sex,
there were slightly more males (34.5%) than females (33.8%) who were enrolled or
currently attending school.
Among the population aged 3 to 24 years old who were attending school, students
aged 6 to 9 (27.5%) posted the higher percentage, followed by aged 10 to 12 (19.7%),
and 17 to 19 (14.4%). (Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2b)
Figure 5.2a. Percentage of Population Aged 3 to 24 Years by Schooling Status by Region:

(in percent)
Figure 5.2b. Proportion of Population Aged 3 to 24 Years Who Were Attending School
by Selected Age Groups: Philippines, 2020 APIS
About 28.0 percent of those attending school were enrolled in junior high school or
Grades 7 to 10, Grades 1 to 3 (22.0%), senior high school or Grades 11 to 12 (11.8%),
and college (11.3%). The proportion of children enrolled in junior high school was
almost the same among males (28.2%) and females (27.7%). On the other hand,
attendance in college was higher among females (12.3%) than males (10.4%)
(Table 5.3 and Figure 5.2c).
Figure 5.2c. Percentage of Population Aged 3 to 24 Years Who Were Attending School
by Current Grade/Year Level Attending: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
Among regions, BARMM (27.8%) had higher proportion of those who were attending
Grades 1 to 3 while Region XI-Davao (29.8%) had higher proportion of those who
were attending junior high school. Higher percentage of attending senior high school
were observed in Region III-Central Luzon (12.8%) and Caraga (12.8%). Further,
Region II-Cagayan Valley (14.4%) had higher proportion for college level.
In terms of residence, there was almost the same proportion of enrolled or attending
junior high school in rural areas (28.2%) and urban areas (27.6%). Rural areas
(22.6%) had higher proportion of enrolled in Grades 1 to 3 than urban areas (21.4%).
Conversely, more urban (12.7%) residents were enrolled or attending college than
rural (10.1%) residents. (Table 5.3)
5.3 REASONS FOR NOT ATTENDING SCHOOL
In 2020, about one in every four (24.2%) persons aged 6 to 24 years old was not
attending school. The top reasons mentioned were employment (22.2%), marriage
(15.0%), finished schooling or finished post-secondary/college (14.6%), high cost of

education/financial concern (11.9%), and reasons due to COVID-19 pandemic (9.6%)
Figure 5.3a. Proportion of Population Aged 6 to 24 Years Who Were Not Attending School
by Reason for Not Attending: Philippines, 2020 APIS
Across regions, NCR (30.3%) reported the highest proportion for not attending school
due to employment. Marriage as the reason for not attending school was highest in
SOCCSKARGEN (23.0%), reason due to finished schooling or completion of post-
secondary/college was highest in CAR (21.5%), and reason for high cost of
education/financial matters was highest in BARMM (22.0%). Results also showed that
BARMM had higher proportion of not attending school due to family matters (16.2%)
and accessibility of school (7.7%). Meanwhile, Region I-Ilocos (24.8%) posted highest
proportion for not attending school due to COVID-19 pandemic community quarantine.
In addition, lack of personal interest was observed higher in SOCCSKARGEN
(17.6%), CAR (15.5%), and Region X-Northern Mindanao (14.0%). (Table 5.4 and
Figure 5.3b)
Figure 5.3b. Proportion of Population Aged 6 to 24 Years Who Were Not Attending School
by Reason for Not Attending by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS
By place of residence, urban residents (25.9%) posted higher proportion of not

attending school due to employment as compared to rural residents (18.2%). The
same pattern was observed among those who finished schooling or completed post-
secondary/college, that is, 15.6 percent of the population 6 to 24 years old in urban
areas as compared to 13.6 percent of those in the rural areas. Conversely, the
proportion of the rural residents (16.3%) who cited marriage as the reason for not
attending school was higher compared to the urban residents (13.8%). Results also
showed that more rural residents reported lack of personal interest (9.5%) and family
matters (6.3%) as reasons for not attending school compared to those in urban areas,
that is, lack of personal interest (6.1 %) and family matters (5.6 %).
By sex disaggregation, more males than females are not attending school due to
employment (26.4%), high cost of education (14.0%), and lack of personal interest
(11.6%). While, more females than males are not attending school due to marriage
(23.4%), and to finish post-secondary/college schooling (18.7%) (Table 5.4).
5.4 FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AGED 6 TO 11 YEARS IN

GRADE 1 TO GRADE 6
Of the 9.7 million families with children aged 6 to 11 years, about 86.9 percent had
children who were in Grade 1 to Grade 6. Regions with highest proportion were
observed in MIMAROPA (89.5%), Region V-Bicol (89.0%), and Region VII-Central
Visayas (88.5%) (Table 5.5 and Figure 5.4a).
As to residence, almost the same proportion of children aged 6 to 11 years who were
in Grade 1 to Grade 6 was observed in rural areas (87.2%) and urban areas (86.7%).
(Table 5.5)
Figure 5.4a. Proportion of Families with Children Aged 6 to 11 Years in Grade 1 to 6

by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
5.5 FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AGED 12 TO 15 YEARS IN

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL (GRADE 7 TO GRADE 10)
Of the 7.7 million families with children aged 12 to 15 years old, about 68.5 percent
had children who were in junior high school (Grades 7 to 10). MIMAROPA Region
reported the highest percentage with children 12 to 15 years old who were attending
junior high school at 75.5 percent while BARMM recorded the lowest percentage at
46.1 percent. (Table 5.6)
Figure 5.5a. Proportion of Families with Children Aged 12 to 15 Years in Junior High School
Education (Grade 7 to 10) by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
Urban areas (69.3%) had more children aged 12 to 15 years who were in junior high
school as compared with rural areas (67.8%) (Table 5.6).
List of Tables:
▪ Table 5.1 Population Aged 5 Years or Over by Sex, Highest Grade/Year Completed and Region and
▪ Table 5.2 Population Aged 3 to 24 Years by Schooling Status by Sex, Age Group and Region and
▪ Table 5.3 Population Aged 3 to 24 Years Who Were Attending School by Sex, Current Grade/Year Level
Attending, Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 5.4 Population Aged 6 to 24 Years Who Were Not Attending School by Reason for Not Attending
School by Region, Residence, and Sex: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 5.5 Families with Children Aged 6 to 11 Years in Grade 1 to 6 by Region and Residence:
▪ Table 5.6 Families with Children Aged 12 to 15 Years in Junior High School Education (Grade 7 to 10)
by Region and Residence: Philippines 2020 APIS
Chapter 6 – EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE
KEY FINDINGS
EDUCATION SERVICE CONTRACTING (ESC) PROGRAM FOR JUNIOR HIGH

SCHOOL:
About 2.2 percent of the population aged 11 to 24 years old had availed
Education Service Contracting (ESC) Program during academic year
2019 to 2020.
Across regions, Region I-Ilocos (4.0%) posted highest proportion of those

who availed the ESC program, followed by SOCCSKSARGEN (3.4%),
and Region VII-Central Visayas (3.2%).
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (SHS) VOUCHER PROGRAM:

About 5.8 percent of the population aged 15 to 24 years old had availed
the Senior High School Voucher Program anytime during the academic
year 2019 to 2020.
Top three regions with availment of SHS voucher program were in NCR
(12.0%), CALABARZON (8.4%), and Region XI-Davao (6.7%).
Urban areas (7.8%) posted a higher percentage of those who availed

SHS voucher program as compared to rural areas (3.8%).
FREE TUITION (SUCs/LUCs) AND TERTIARY EDUCATION SUBSIDY (TES):

About 2.7 percent of the population 15 to 24 years old received or availed
free tuition fee from State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) or Local
Universities and Colleges (LUCs) while less than one percent had availed
Tertiary Education Subsidy during academic year 2019 to 2020.
This chapter presents the percentage of population 11 to 24 years old who received
or availed education assistance particularly on educational service contracting
program for junior high school, senior high school voucher program and free tuition
fee, tertiary education subsidy or student loan program under the Universal Access to
Quality Tertiary Education (UAQTE).
88 | Chapter 6 – EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

6.1 EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTING PROGRAM FOR

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Of the 28.7 million population aged 11 to 24 years old, about 2.2 percent had availed
Education Service Contracting Program (ESC) for junior high school during academic
year 2019 to 2020, wherein 1.3 percent had availed the program with additional fee
and less than one percent had availed without additional fee (Table 6.1).
Across regions, Region I-Ilocos (4.0%) posted the highest proportion of those who
availed the program, followed by SOCCSKSARGEN (3.4%) and Region VII-Central
Visayas (3.2%) (Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1a).
By residence, urban residents (2.4%) posted slightly higher proportion than rural
residents (2.0%). Males (2.2%) and females (2.3%) had an almost equal proportion
who availed the ESC program (Table 6.1).
Figure 6.1a. Percentage Population 11 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Educational Service
Contracting Program during Academic Year 2019-2020: Philippines, 2020 APIS
6.2 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAM

Of the 20 million population aged 15 to 24 years old in 2020, about 5.8 percent had
availed the Senior High School Voucher Program anytime during the academic year
2019 to 2020, of which, 3.1 percent were able to avail the voucher without additional
fees and 2.8 percent were able to avail with additional fees (Table 6.2 and
Figure 6.2a).
Chapter 6 – EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE | 89

Figure 6.2a. Percentage of Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Senior Voucher Program
during Academic Year 2019-2020: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
Figure 6.2b. Top Three Regions with Highest Percentage

Across regions, NCR (12.0%), of Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Senior High
CALABARZON (8.4%), and School Voucher Program During Academic Year 2019-
2020: Philippines, 2020 APIS
Region XI-Davao (6.7%) have the
highest percentage of population
15 to 24 years old who availed the
SHS voucher program. Regions
with the highest percentage of
those who availed the voucher
program with additional fee were
in CALABARZON (5.3%), Region
XI-Davao (4.4%), and CAR
(4.1%). Meanwhile, regions with
highest percentage of those who
availed the voucher program
without any additional fee were
from NCR (9.2%), BARMM
(3.1%), and CALABARZON
(3.1%). (Table 6.2 and Figure
6.2b)
By place of residence, urban

areas (7.8%) posted a higher
percentage of those who availed
SHS voucher program as compared to those in rural areas (3.8%). (Table 6.2 and
Figure 6.2c)
90 | Chapter 6 - EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Figure 6.2c. Percentage of Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Senior High School
Voucher Program during Academic Years 2019-2020 by Residence Status,
By sex, higher percentage of those who availed SHS voucher program was reported
among females (6.2%) than males (5.5%). Both sexes almost had the same
percentage of those who availed the voucher program with additional fees, while
females (3.3.%) had higher percentage of those who availed the voucher program
without additional fees than males (2.8%). (Table 6.2)
6.3 FREE TUITION (SUC/LUC) AND TERTIARY EDUCATION

SUBSIDY
About 3.6 percent of the population aged 15 to 24 years old had availed the free tuition
fee and Tertiary Education Subsidy (TES) under the Universal Access to Quality
Tertiary Education (UAQTE) during academic year 2019-2020. (Table 6.3 and
Figure 6.3a)
In terms of program under UAQTE, about 2.7 percent received or availed free tuition
fee from State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) or Local Universities and Colleges
(LUCs) during academic year 2019 to 2020, while 0.8 percent had availed TES.
Across regions, Region VIII-Eastern Visayas (5.7%) posted a higher percentage of

those who availed free tuition from SUCs/LUCs, followed by MIMAROPA (5.2%) and
CAR (5.0%). Further, availment of TES was highest in Caraga with 2.5 percent. (Table
6.3)

Figure 6.3a. Percentage of Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Free Tuition Tertiary
Education Subsidy during Academic Year 2019-2020: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
Availment of SUC/LUC free tuition fee was higher in rural areas (3.0%) compared with
urban areas (2.5%). More females (3.1%) than males (2.4%) had availed free tuition
fee from State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) or Local Universities and Colleges
and (LUCs). (Table 6.3)
List of Tables:
▪ Table 6.1 Population 11 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Educational Service Contracting during
Academic Year 2019-2020 by Sex, Region, and Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 6.2 Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Senior High School Voucher Program during
Academic Year 2019-2020 by Sex, Region, and Residence: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 6.3 Population 15 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Free Tuition (SUC/LUC) and Tertiary Education
Subsidy during Academic Year 2019-2020 by Sex, Region, and Residence: Philippines,
2020




Chapter 7 – HEALTH STATUS
KEY FINDINGS
HEALTH STATUS:
About seven percent of the total family members reported that they got ill/sick
or injured in the past month preceding the survey.
Top three regions with higher percentage of family members who got ill/sick
or injured one month preceding the survey were Caraga (16.7%),
SOCCSKSARGEN (12.0%), and Region V-Bicol (11.6%).
By sex, males (7.2%) and females (6.8%) had an almost similar percentage
who got ill/sick or injured.
Of the total family members 5 years old and over who got ill/sick or injured,
about 34.6 percent were not able to go to work/school or were not able to
perform daily activities.
Residents in rural areas (37.3%) posted higher percentage of family members

who were not able to go to work or school or were not able to perform daily
activities due to their illness/sickness or injury as compared with those in urban
areas (31.5%).
More males (38.1%) were not able to go to work or school or were not able to
perform daily activities due to their illness/sickness or injury than females
(31.0%).
About 10.9 percent had been absent for 1 day, 20.3 percent for 2 days, 16.9
percent for 3 days, 25.2 percent for 4 to 7 days, 7.3 percent for 8 to 14 days,
2.9 percent for 15 to 21 days and 16.5 percent for those who had been absent
for almost a month (22 to 30 days).
About three in every four (76.3%) children aged 0 to 5 years old were weighed
in the past 12 months preceding the survey.
OPERATION TIMBANG:
As to residence, rural areas (78.5%) had a higher percentage of having their
children weighed in the past 12 month compared to urban areas (73.9%).
Females (77.0%) had higher percentage of being weighed in the past 12

months as compared to males (75.6%).
96 | Chapter 7 – HEALTH STATUS

This chapter presents the health status of family members and whether the
illness/sickness or injury have been the reason for their absence from work or school
or were not being able to perform daily activities one month preceding the survey. It
also presents information on the number of family members aged 0 to 5 years old who
were weighed during the past 12 months preceding the survey and the number of
times they were weighed.
7.1 HEALTH STATUS OF FAMILY MEMBERS
Illness refers to the health condition of a

person involving his body or mind due to
disease or fatigue. Meanwhile, injured
refers to any sustained bodily damages,
hurts, or loss by a person on an individual.
Based on the 2020 Annual Poverty

Indicators Survey (APIS), about 7.0
percent of the total family members
reported that they got ill/sick or injured in
the past month preceding the survey; that
is, from 01 to 30 June 2020. Of those
family members who got ill/sick or injured,
about 5.3 percentage points had it once;
1.0 percentage point, twice; and less than
one percentage point thrice (0.2%) or
more than thrice (0.5%) (Table 7.1).
Across regions, the top three with higher

percentage of family members who got
ill/sick or injured one month preceding the
survey were in Caraga (16.7%),
SOCCSKSARGEN (12.0%), and Region V-Bicol (11.6%). On the other hand, those
that posted lowest percentages of family members who got ill/sick or injured include
Region XI-Davao (2.9%), Region VII-Central Visayas (3.0%), and CAR (3.1%). In
addition, rural areas (7.8%) had higher percentage of family members who got ill/sick
or injured than those living in the urban areas (6.3%). (Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1a).
On the number of times the person got ill/sick or injured, about 5.3 percent of family
members got ill/sick or injured once, twice (1.0%), and less than one percent reported
that they got ill/sick or injured thrice or more than thrice in the past month. By region,
Caraga (12.1%) posted the highest percentage of family members who got ill/sick or
injured once, followed by Region V-Bicol (9.0%), CALABARZON (7.9%), and
Chapter 7 – HEALTH STATUS | 97

MIMAROPA Region (7.7%). In terms of residence, rural areas (5.8%) had higher
percentage of family members who got ill/sick or injured once as compared to those
in urban areas (4.7%)
By sex, males (7.2%) had a higher percentage who got ill/sick or injured compared to
females (6.8%). Meanwhile, the percentage of family members who got ill/sick or
injured once were almost the same for both male (5.4%) and female (5.1%) (Table
7.1).
Of the total family members 5 years old and over who got ill/sick or injured, about 34.6
percent were not able to go to work/school or were not able to perform daily activities.
(Table 7.2 and Figure 7.1b).
Figure 7.1b. Percentage of Population 5 Years Old and Over Citing Illness/Sickness
or Injury as a Reason for Their Absence from Work or School or for Not Being Able
to Perform Daily Activities in the Past Month (June 2020): Philippines, 2020 APIS
Across regions, the top three regions with the highest percentage of the population 5
years and over who got sick/ill or injured who did not go to work/school or perform
daily activities were Region II-Cagayan Valley (55.7%), Region IX-Zamboanga
Peninsula (49.7%), and Region VIII-Eastern Visayas (47.3%). Whereas regions of
BARMM (21.5%), Caraga (22.3%), and Region I-Ilocos (25.6%) registered the lowest
percentage.
By residence status, those living in rural areas (37.3%) have had higher percentage
of family members who were not able to go to work/school nor performed daily
activities due to their illness/sickness or injury compared with those from urban areas
(31.5%).
By sex, a higher percentage of those who were not able to go to work/school nor
performed daily activities due to their illness/sickness or injury was reported among
males (38.1%) than females (31.0%).

At the national level, the most common duration in terms of the number of days not
being able to go to work or school nor performed daily activities due to illness/ sickness
or injury in the past month was 4 to 7 days with 25.2 percent. (Table 7.3 and Figure
7.1d).
Figure 7.1.c. Percentage of Population 5 Years and Over Reporting on the Number of
Day/s that were Not Able to Go to Work or School nor Perform Daily Activities
Because of their Illness/Sickness/Injury during the Past Month:
(in percent)
Across regions, the top three with highest percentages of not being able to go to
work/school nor performed daily activities for 4 to 7 days were MIMAROPA Region
(35.5%), Region VII – Central Visayas (32.9%), and Region XI – Davao (32.4%).
By residence, the most common number of days of not being able to go to work/school
nor performed daily activities of family member living in urban areas was two days with
22.1 percent, while in rural areas, it was four to seven days (28.4%).
Females (34.9%) %) had higher percentage of being absent for 1 to 2 days as

compared with males (28.5%). On the contrary, males (17.7%) reported a higher
percentage of being absent for almost one month than females (14.9%) (Table 7.3).

7.2 OPERATION TIMBANG OF FAMILY MEMBERS AGED 0 TO 5

YEARS OLD
Nationwide, about three in every four (76.3%) children aged 0 to 5 years were weighed
in the past 12 months preceding the survey (Table 7.4 and Figure 7.2a).
Figure 7.2a. Percentage of Children Aged 0 to 5 Years Old Who were Weighed in the
Past 12 Months Preceding the Survey, Philippines: 2020 APIS
By region, the three regions with highest percentages of children weighed in the past
12 months were in Region I-Ilocos (88.4%), Region V-Bicol (87.5%), and MIMAROPA
Region (85.6%). Meanwhile, the three regions with lowest percentages were in
BARMM (45.5%), NCR (70.0%), and CALABARZON (72.8%). Across all regions, most
children aged 0 to 5 years old were weighed 1 to 3 times in the past 12 months.
Among children aged 0 to 5 years old who were weighed in the past 12 months, 65.4
percent were weighed 1 to 3 times; 19.9 percent, 4 to 7 times; and 14.3 percent, 8 to
15 times (Table 7.4 and Figure 7.2b).
As to residence, rural areas (78.5%) had a higher percentage of children aged 0 to 5

years old weighed in the past 12 months compared to urban areas (73.9%), with 1 to
3 times the most common frequency of weighing for both rural (60.7%) and urban areas
(70.8%). By sex, females (77.0%) had slightly higher percentage of being weighed in
the past 12 months as compared to males (75.6%). Among those weighed, most males
(64.7%) and females (66.2%) reported being weighed for about 1 to 3 times
(Table 7.4).

Figure 7.2b. Percentage of Children Aged 0 to 5 Years with Recorded Number of Times
Weighed During the Past 12 months: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
Source:
Philippine Statistics Authority, 2020 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey
List of Tables:
▪ Table 7.1. Percentage of Population by Number of Times a Person Got Ill/Sick or Injured in the Past
Month by Region, Residence, and Sex: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 7.2. Population 5 Years Old and Over Who Experience Illness/Sickness or Injury and Percentage
of Whether the Illness/Sickness or Injury was the Reason for Being Absent from Work or
School or For Not Being Able to Perform Daily Activities in the Past Month by Region,
Residence, and Sex: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 7.3. Population Five Years Old and Over Who Experience Illness/Sickness or Injury and Had Been
Absent from Work or School or Not Being Able to Perform Daily Activities and Percentage of
the Number of Day/s Not Being Able to go to Work or School, or Not Being Able to Perform
Daily Activities Due to Illness/Sickness or Injury in the Past Month by Region, Residence, and
Sex: Philippines, 2020
▪ Table 7.4 Population 0 to 5 Years Old and Percentage of Population Aged 0 to 5 Years Old Who were
Weighed and Number of Times Weighed in the Past 12 Months by Region, Residence, and
Sex: Philippines, 2020





Chapter 8 - SOCIAL PROTECTION

PROGRAMS
KEY FINDINGS
PROGRAMS UNDER BAYANIHAN TO HEAL AS ONE ACT:

Almost half (46.7%) of Filipino families received benefits/assistance from
the Social Amelioration Program (SAP).
Across regions, eight out 17 regions had more than half of the families
who received benefits from SAP.
Rural Areas (50.8%) had higher percentage of families who received
benefits from SAP compared with urban areas (42.8%).
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE:
About 14.2 percent of Filipino Families had members/beneficiaries of the
Regular CCT-4Ps, while 1.1 percent were covered by the Modified
CCT-4Ps.
Two percent (2.1%) were UCT beneficiary.
Nine percent (9.7%) had Indigent Senior Citizen's Social Pension (SPIC
or SocPen).
SOCIAL INSURANCE:
About one-half (48.9%) of the total families had a member/dependent/
beneficiary of the Social Security System (SSS).
PHILHEALTH:
About four in every five families (78.7%) had a member of PhilHealth.
The top three services availed/received by families from PhilHealth were
non-communicable diseases services (36.8%), maternal services
(33.1%), and infectious diseases services (22.0%).
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS KIT:

About 14.8% of families had a disaster preparedness kit or supplies kit or
grab to go bag in the event of emergency. The most common contents of
the kit were medical kit (70.2%), flashlight (70.1%), food (50.6%), clothes
(48.7), and important documents (39.5%).
106 | Chapter 8 – SOCIAL PROTECTIONS PROGRAM

This chapter presents the selected social protection programs received by the Filipino
families in the last 6 months (January to June 2020) preceding the survey. It includes
the percentage of families who received benefits/assistance from the Social
Amelioration Program (SAP) under the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act to dampen the
socio-economic condition amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, it includes the
percentage of families who received benefits from social assistance programs (i.e.,
4Ps, UCT, SocPen and others), and feeding program of government and social
insurance (i.e., SSS, GSIS, PhilHealth, and others). Disaster preparedness is also
discussed in this chapter if the family had a disaster preparedness kit or supplies kit
or grab to go bag in case of an emergency.
Social protection is defined as consisting of policies and programs that seek to reduce
poverty and vulnerability to risks and enhance the social status and rights of the
marginalized by promoting and protecting their livelihood and employment, protecting
them against hazards and sudden interruptions, loss of income, and improving
people’s capacity to manage risks.2
8.1 SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS UNDER BAYANIHAN TO

HEAL AS ONE ACT Figure 8.1a. Proportion of Filipino Families Who Received
Benefits from Social Amelioration Program (SAP) by Region:
Nationwide, almost half (46.7%) of the
25.8 million Filipino families received
benefits/assistance from the Social
Amelioration Program (SAP) during the
period April to June 2020. (Table 8.1)
Across regions, eight out 17 regions had

more than half of the families who received
benefits from SAP, namely: Region VI-
Western Visayas (57.7%), Region II- (in percent)
Cagayan Valley (56.4%), Region I-Ilocos
(53.0%), SOCCSKSARGEN (51.4%),
Region III-Central Luzon (50.9%), Region
X-Northern Mindanao (50.6%), CAR
(50.4%), and Region IX-Zamboanga
Peninsula (50.3%). On the contrary, NCR
(37.5%) had the lowest percentage of
families who received benefits from SAP
2
This is based on the official definition from SDC Resolution No. 1 Series of 2007 which was adopted in the Philippine Social
Protection Operational Framework and Strategy by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and NEDA-SDC-
Subcommittee on Social Protection (SC-SP) version February 2019.
Chapter 8 – SOCIAL PROTECTIONS PROGRAM | 107

Rural areas (50.8%) had higher percentage of families who received benefits from
SAP compared with urban areas (42.8%).
Families also received assistance from Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
from January to June 2020. Nationwide, about 1.5 percent of families received
assistance from DOLE Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/ Displaced
Workers (Tupad) “Barangay ko, Buhay ko” or COVID-19 Adjustment Measures
Program or DOLE AKAP.
Further, about 2.9 percent were beneficiaries of the Department of Agriculture (DA)
farmers financial assistance program. The top three regions with higher percentage of
families who received benefits of this program were in Region I-Ilocos (14.9%),
Region II-Cagayan Valley (8.6%), and MIMAROPA Region (6.8%).
Relief assistance is the very common help that can be provided to the families during
calamity, disaster, or pandemic. In the past 6 months preceding the survey (January
to June 2020), majority (90.8%) of families received relief assistance from government
agencies and about 24.3 percent from private institutions or individuals or other than
government agencies (Table 8.1 and Figure 8.1b).
Figure 8.1b. Proportion of Filipino Families Who Received Relief Assistance from
Government or Other than Government: Philippines, 2020 APIS
Across regions, Region II-Cagayan Valley (96.7%), Region I-Ilocos (96.0%), and
MIMAROPA Region (95.8%) have the highest percentage of families who received
relief assistance from the government. Moreover, Region I-Ilocos (44.5%), BARMM
(36.4%), and Region V-Bicol (31.6%) have the highest percentage of families who
received relief assistance from private institutions, individuals, or other than
government.
108 | Chapter 8 - SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS

More families in rural areas (92.9%) received relief assistance from government as
compared with families in urban areas (88.9%). The same pattern was observed in
families who received relief assistance from other than government, that is, rural areas
(27.2%) received more as compared to urban areas (21.6%) (Table 8.1).
8.2 SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
Of the 25.8 million Filipino families, about 14.2 percent were members/beneficiaries of
the Regular Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT)–Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programs
(4Ps), 1.1 percent were covered by the Modified CCT–4Ps, 9.7 percent were
beneficiary of Indigent Senior’s Social Pension, 2.1 percent received Unconditional
Cash Transfer (UCT) tax reform program, and less than one percent of families were
beneficiary of Student Financial Assistance Programs (StuFAP) other than Universal
Access to Quality Tertiary Education (UAQTE) (0.4%), and Emergency Shelter
Assistance (ESA) (0.2) (Table 8.2 and Figure 8.2a).
Across regions, four out of 17 regions had more than 25 percent of its families received
benefits from Regular CCT–4Ps from January to June 2020. These were: Region IX-
Zamboanga Peninsula (30.5%), Caraga (26.9%), BARMM (26.4%), and Region V-
Bicol (26.1%). Meanwhile, NCR (5.4%) had the lowest percentage of families who
received benefits from Regular CCT–4Ps.
Figure 8.2a. Regions with Highest Proportion of Families who Received Assistance/Benefits
from Regular Conditional Cash Transfer - 4Ps: Philippines, 2020 APIS
From January to June 2020, about 21.0 percent of Filipino families residing in rural
areas were members/beneficiaries of Regular CCT–4Ps, which were higher in
comparison to Filipino families residing in urban residences (7.8%) (Table 8.2).

8.3 FEEDING PROGRAM
The National Feeding Program was established to address undernutrition among

Filipino children. The program consists of two components, namely: Supplemental
Feeding Program for Day Care Children, and School Feeding Program. For the
purposes of this survey, feeding programs for two reference period were collected.
These were the January to June 2020 and July to December 2019.
In July to December 2019, about 3.1

percent of Filipino families had a
member that received benefits from
feeding program, which then
increased to 3.8 percent during
January to June 2020.
(Table 8.3 and Figure 8.3a)
Across regions, Caraga and Region

IX-Zamboanga Peninsula had the
highest percentage of families who
availed/received benefits/
assistance from feeding program
during July to December 2019 with
6.3 percent each.
Moreover, BARMM (6.8%), Region I-Ilocos (6.8%) and Region IX-Zamboanga

Peninsula (6.7%) Region IX-Zamboanga Peninsula (6.7%) recorded the highest
proportion of families who availed/received benefits/assistance from the said program
during January to June 2020.
During July to December 2019, more families had received benefits from feeding
program in rural areas (4.2%) than in urban areas (2.1%). The proportion increase for
families who received benefits from feeding program during the period January to June
2020, was recorded higher in rural areas at 4.9 percent than in urban areas with 2.7
percent (Table 8.3).
8.4 SOCIAL INSURANCE
Nationwide, about one in every two (48.9%) families had a member/dependent/

beneficiary of the Social Security System (SSS). This was followed by membership to
Health/Medical Insurance other than PhilHealth (HMO) (13.8%), Life Insurance/Pre-
need Insurance (8.4%), and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) (7.6%)

Figure 8.4a. Percentage of Families Who Had a Member/Dependent/Beneficiary

of Social Insurance Programs: Philippines, 2020 APIS
About three out of every four families (75.7%) in NCR had a member/dependent/
beneficiary of SSS in the family. Meanwhile, CAR had the highest proportion of
families with a GSIS member/beneficiary with 13.3 percent. On the other hand,
BARMM registered the lowest proportion of families with member/dependent/
beneficiary both in SSS (4.3%) and GSIS (1.3%) (Table 8.4 and Figure 8.4b).
Figure 8.4b. Regions with Highest and Lowest Proportion of Families with
a Member/Dependent/Beneficiary in SSS and GSIS: Philippines, 2020 APIS

Furthermore, about two-thirds (63.4%) of the families residing in urban residences

had a member/dependent/beneficiary of the SSS in contrast to families residing in
rural residences (33.4%). The same pattern was found on all other Social Insurance
Programs.
Of the total Filipino families who availed/received assistance/benefits/payments from

social insurances from January to June 2020, about 14.6 percent availed it from SSS,
18.0 percent from GSIS, 4.1 percent from Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
(OWWA), 2.9 percent from HMO, and 0.9 percent from life insurance/pre-need
insurance (Table 8.4).
8.5 PHILHEALTH MEMBERSHIP
About four in five families (78.7%) had at least one member/dependent/beneficiary of

PhilHealth. Of these families, about 41.1 percent were paying members and 37.7
percent were non-paying members, which can be referred to as indigent member,
dependent of indigent member, or is a privately sponsored member (Table 8.5 and
Figure 8.5a).
Across regions, Caraga (89.9%), CAR (87.7%), and MIMAROPA Region (85.0%) were
the top three regions with highest percentage of PhilHealth members/dependent/
beneficiary. Families residing in BARMM (49.6%) recorded the lowest proportion of
families with PhilHealth member, with 6.1 percent of it as paying member and 43.4
percent as non-paying member (Table 8.5 and Figure 8.5a).
Figure 8.5a. Proportion of Filipino Families with Paying Members and Non-Paying
Members of PhilHealth by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)

In terms of residence, rural areas (51.5%) had higher percentage of PhilHealth

non-paying member as compared with urban areas (24.7%). Meanwhile, urban areas
(55.5%) had higher percentage of PhilHealth paying member than rural areas (25.7%).
Among families with PhilHealth, about 3.0 percent of families availed/received

PhilHealth assistance. The top three PhilHealth services availed/received by families
were non-communicable diseases services (36.8%), maternal services (33.1%), and
infectious diseases service (22.0%) (Table 8.6 and Figure 8.5b).
Figure 8.5b. Most availed PhilHealth Services from January to June 2020:
Non-communicable diseases services (38.2%) and maternal services (36.2%) were

the most availed PhilHealth services among families residing in urban areas. The
same services were included in the most availed services among families in rural
areas, that is, non-communicable diseases services (35.2%), infectious diseases
services (29.6%), and maternal services (29.4%) (Table 8.6).
8.6 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS KIT
At the national level, about 14.8 percent of families had a disaster preparedness kit or
supplies kit or grab to go bag in the event of emergency. The most common contents
of the kit were medical kit (70.2%), flashlight (70.1%), food (50.6%), clothes (48.7%),
and important documents (39.5%) (Table 8.7 and Figure 8.6a).

Figure 8.6a. Families Who Had Disaster-Preparedness Kit and the Content of
Disaster-Preparedness Kit: Philippines, APIS 2020
(in percent)
Across regions, five out of 17 regions had proportion of families with disaster
preparedness kit higher than the national level (14.8%). These were BARMM (36.9%),
Region I-Ilocos (24.0%), Region IX-Zamboanga Peninsula, CALABARZON (16.3%),
and NCR (16.1%).
Families residing in rural residences (16.4%) had a higher proportion of families with
disaster preparedness kit than the families residing in urban residences (13.3%).
In terms of the content of disaster preparedness kit, Region VII-Central Visayas

(57.7%) led in having water in the kit, BARMM on food (87.4%) and clothes
(78.9%),NCR on medical kit (85.0%) and whistle (38.9%), and Region IX-Zamboanga
Peninsula on important document (70.0%) (Table 8.7).
List of Tables:
▪ Table 8.1. Percentage of Families Who Availed/Received Benefits/Assistance/ Payments in the Last 6
Months (January to June 2020) by Type of Social Assistance Programs under Bayanihan Act
by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 APIS
▪ Table 8.2. Percentage of Families Who Availed/Received Benefits/Assistance/ Payments in the Last 6
Months (January to June 2020) by Type of Social Assistance Programs by Region and
Residence: Philippines, 2020 APIS
▪ Table 8.3. Families Who Had a Member/Beneficiary of Feeding Program by Region and Residence:

▪ Table 8.4 Families Who Had a Member and Availed/Received Benefits in the Last 6 Months (January to
June 2020) by Type of Social Insurance Programs by Region and Residence: Philippines,
2020 APIS
▪ Table 8.5 Families with Paying and Non-Paying Members of PhilHealth by Region and Residence:
▪ Table 8.6 Families Who Received Assistance from Different PhilHealth Services by Region and
▪ Table 8.7 Families Who Had Disaster Preparedness Kit and the Content of Disaster Preparedness Kit
by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020 APIS





Table 8.5. Families with Paying and Non-Paying Members of PhilHealth by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020
Number of
Families with At least One Member/Dependent/Beneficiary of PhilHealth
Families
Region/Residence
(Total, in
thousands) Total Paying Non-Paying
PHILIPPINES 25,848 78.7 41.1 37.7

National Capital Region 3,449 83.7 69.1 14.6
Cordillera Administrative Region 439 87.7 43.6 44.1
Region I - Ilocos 1,252 78.4 36.5 42.0
Region II - Cagayan Valley 883 78.8 41.8 37.1
Region III - Central Luzon 2,923 75.2 43.7 31.5
Region IV-A - CALABARZON 3,970 79.2 55.8 23.4
MIMAROPA Region 770 85.0 24.3 60.7

Region V - Bicol 1,319 78.3 24.9 53.4
Region VI - Western Visayas 1,907 81.0 29.4 51.6
Region VII - Central Visayas 1,927 67.5 33.4 34.0
Region VIII - Eastern Visayas 1,108 79.5 26.3 53.2
Region IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 863 82.0 20.5 61.5
Region X - Northern Mindanao 1,168 82.7 31.3 51.4
Region XI - Davao 1,356 82.4 41.2 41.1
Region XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 1,181 79.2 33.1 46.1
Region XIII - Caraga 649 89.9 27.5 62.4
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region In 683 49.6 6.1 43.4
Muslim Mindanao
Residence
Urban 13,332 80.2 55.5 24.7
Rural 12,516 77.2 25.7 51.5
Note: " * " An asterisk indicates that a figure is based on fewer than 25 unweighted cases and has been suppressed.


Chapter 9 - OTHER RELEVANT

INFORMATION
KEY FINDINGS
AVAILMENT OF LOAN AND ITS SOURCES:

About 24.2 percent of families availed loans in January to June 2020.
Families who availed loan in rural areas (26.0%) had higher percentage
as compared to urban areas (22.5%).
Most common sources of loan were from relative or friend (52.4%),

microfinance institutions (25.2%) and informal lenders (15.9%).
COOPERATIVE MEMBERSHIP:
About 12.3 percent of families were member of cooperative.
Across regions, CAR (58.2%), Region II-Cagayan Valley (73.1%), and

Region VIII-Eastern Visayas (24.8%) posted a higher percentage of
families with member of a cooperative.
HOW SAFE WALKING ALONE AT NIGHT:

About 89.8 percent of families based on respondent’s perception said
that they felt safe walking alone in their area/community at night, 7.9
percent felt somewhat safe, and 1.0 percent felt somewhat unsafe.
HOW SAFE FROM SEXUAL HARASSMENT:

About 89.3 percent of families based on respondent’s perception said
that they felt safe from sexual harassment in the online/workplaces/
educational/training institutions at any time, 8.7 percent felt somewhat
safe, and less than one percent said somewhat safe and unsafe.
This section presents the proportion of families who availed loan and its sources,
information about families with member of cooperative, and respondent’s perception
on how safe walking alone in the community at night and how safe from sexual
harassment the online/workplace/education/training institutions are.
Chapter 9 - OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION | 123

9.1 AVAILMENT OF LOAN AND ITS SOURCES
Of the total number of families, 24.2 percent of families availed loans from January to
June 2020. Across regions, BARMM (39.7%), Region II-Cagayan Valley (35.5%) and
Region VIII-Eastern Visayas (35.0%) had the highest proportion of families who
availed loan during the period (Table 9.1 and Figure 9.1a).
Figure 9.1a. Percent Distribution of Families Who Availed of Loan from

January to June 2020 by Region: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
By place of residence, rural areas (26.0%) had higher percentage of families who
availed loan compared to urban areas (22.5%).
Nationwide, the most common sources of loan were relative or friend (52.4%),
microfinance institutions (25.2%) and informal lenders (15.9%). Availment of loans
from relative or friend was higher in urban areas (55.1%) than in rural (49.8%), while
loans from microfinance institution was higher in rural areas (31.8%) than in urban
areas (18.1%) (Table 9.1).
124 | Chapter 9 - OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

9.2 COOPERATIVE MEMBERSHIP
Nationwide, about 12.3 percent of families were member of cooperatives. Across

regions, Region II-Cagayan Valley (73.1%), CAR (58.2%), and Region VIII-Eastern
Visayas (24.8%) posted the highest percentages with families who were member of
cooperative in the past 6 months (January to June 2020) preceding the survey (Table
9.2).
Figure 9.2a. Percentage of Families Who Were Members of Cooperative by Region:

(in percent)
Further, families in rural areas (16.0%) had higher proportion of families with members
of cooperative than in urban areas (8.8%) (Table 9.2).
9.3 FEELING SAFE WALKING ALONE IN THE COMMUNITY AT

NIGHT
Feeling safe means free from either harm or hurt, emotionally and physically.
Nationwide, about 89.8 percent of families based on respondent’s perception said that
they felt safe walking alone in their area/ community at night, 7.9 percent felt somewhat
safe, and 1.0 percent felt somewhat unsafe, and less than one percent felt that they
were unsafe (0.9%) and less than one percent (0.1%) were afraid to be alone.

Across regions, Region I-Ilocos (98.1%), MIMAROPA (96.5%), and Region XI-Davao
(95.7%) posted the highest percentage of families who felt “safe” walking alone in the
community at night. On the contrary, NCR (81.4%), Region X-Northern Mindanao
(83.5%), and Region IX-Zamboanga Peninsula (84.8%) recorded the lowest
percentages of families who felt safe walking alone in the community at night. By
residence, this percentage was higher in rural areas (93.5%) than in urban areas
(86.3%) (Table 9.3 and Figure 9.3a).
Figure 9.3a. Respondents’ Perception on How Safe Walking Alone in the Community at
Night is: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)
9.4 FELLING SAFE FROM SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Nationwide, about 89.3 percent of families said that they felt safe from sexual
harassment in the online/workplaces/educational/ training institutions at any time, 8.7
percent felt somewhat safe, and less than one percent felt somewhat safe and unsafe
Figure 9.4a. Respondents’ Perception on How Safe from Sexual Harassment in the Online/
Workplaces/Educational/Training/Institutions is at Any Time: Philippines, 2020 APIS
(in percent)

Across regions, Region I-Ilocos (98.5%), Caraga (96.5%), and Region II-Cagayan
Valley (95.9%) posted the highest percentages of families who said they felt “safe”
from sexual harassment in the online/workplaces/educational/training institutions at
any time. On the contrary, NCR (81.3%), Northern Mindanao (82.2%) and
CALABARZON (84.6%) recorded lowest percentage of families feeling safe from
sexual harassment at any time. By residence, a higher proportion was posted in rural
areas (92.8%) than in urban areas (86.0%) (Table 9.4)
List of Tables:
▪ Table 9.1. Families Who Availed of Loan from January to June 2020 by Source of Loan and Region
▪ Table 9.2. Percentage of Families Who Were Member of Cooperative by Region and Residence:
▪ Table 9.3. Respondents' Perception on How Safe Walking Alone in the Community at Night by Region
▪ Table 9.4 Respondents' Perception on How Safe from Sexual Harassment in the
Online/Workplaces/Educational/Training Institutions at Any Time by Region and

Table 9.1. Families Who Availed of Loan From January to June 2020 by Source of Loan by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020
Percentage of Source of Loan (Percentage)

Total Number
Families
Region/Residence of Families
Who Availed Microfinance Relative/ Informal
(in thousands) GSIS SSS Pag-ibig Credit Union Bank Pawnshop Others
Loan Institution Friend Lender
PHILIPPINES 25,848 24.2 4.0 3.2 1.9 25.2 52.4 3.5 3.9 15.9 2.6 4.0
National Capital Region 3,449 22.6 1.7 7.8 2.8 5.8 67.8 2.8 1.9 21.1 * 5.0
Cordillera Administrative Region 439 14.1 6.0 * * 41.1 36.6 8.9 8.7 * * *
Region I - Ilocos 1,252 18.0 * * * 28.3 59.1 * * * * *
Region II - Cagayan Valley 883 35.5 7.2 * * 18.2 32.1 8.9 8.8 26.6 * 13.1
Region III - Central Luzon 2,923 32.9 3.8 2.7 * 7.6 70.4 * 2.4 25.5 * 2.9
Region IV-A - CALABARZON 3,970 20.8 * * * 22.9 57.0 * * 8.8 * *

MIMAROPA Region 770 25.4 5.9 * * 53.3 27.4 * 4.5 6.2 * 6.2
Region V - Bicol 1,319 31.4 4.4 * * 42.5 44.6 * 5.0 6.2 * 4.3
Region VI - Western Visayas 1,907 23.0 3.3 * * 39.9 50.2 * * 19.1 * *
Region VII - Central Visayas 1,927 13.9 * * * 45.3 22.0 7.9 * 16.0 * *
Region VIII - Eastern Visayas 1,108 35.0 5.1 * * 40.1 52.0 5.2 * 10.3 * 7.0
Region IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 863 16.6 * * * 35.3 28.5 * * 28.8 * *
Region X - Northern Mindanao 1,168 19.0 8.3 * * 32.1 37.6 6.1 * 12.9 * *
Region XI - Davao 1,356 20.3 * * * 35.9 33.2 * 9.1 20.9 * *
Region XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 1,181 26.6 * * * 28.1 55.3 * 4.9 19.1 7.3 *
Region XIII - Caraga 649 21.8 9.7 7.2 * 54.2 10.4 * 10.2 14.0 * *
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region 683 39.7 * * * * 77.8 * * * 37.2 *
In Muslim Mindanao
Residence
Urban 13,332 22.5 4.3 4.9 2.9 18.1 55.1 4.1 4.0 17.1 1.9 4.0
Rural 12,516 26.0 3.7 1.6 1.0 31.8 49.8 3.0 3.8 14.9 3.2 4.0
Table 9.2. Percentage of Families Who Were Member of Cooperative by Region and Residence: Philippines, 2020
Total Number of Percentage of Families

Region/Residence Families Who Were Member
(in thousands) of Cooperative
PHILIPPINES 25,848 12.3

National Capital Region 3,449 2.9
Cordillera Administrative Region 439 58.2
Region I - Ilocos 1,252 8.0
Region II - Cagayan Valley 883 73.1
Region III - Central Luzon 2,923 4.0
Region IV-A - CALABARZON 3,970 5.3
MIMAROPA Region 770 16.4
Region V - Bicol 1,319 10.5
Region VI - Western Visayas 1,907 10.3
Region VII - Central Visayas 1,927 21.2
Region VIII - Eastern Visayas 1,108 24.8
Region IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 863 8.8
Region X - Northern Mindanao 1,168 11.6
Region XI - Davao 1,356 6.8
Region XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 1,181 18.5
Region XIII - Caraga 649 9.8
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region
In Muslim Mindanao 683 1.9
Residence
Urban 13,332 8.8
Rural 12,516 16.0



Appendix A - QUESTIONNAIRE
132 | Chapter 10 - QUESTIONNAIRE

Chapter 10 - QUESTIONNAIRE | 133
















5D20APIS20Report Rev120comments ONSF3 Signed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5D20APIS20Report Rev120comments ONSF3 Signed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This page is intentionally left blank.

This page is intentionally left blank.

For technical inquiries, please direct calls at (+632) 8376-1995.

Terms of Use of PSA Publications | v

The 2020 APIS final report provides information on demographic characteristics,

DENNIS S. MAPA Ph.D.

Quezon City, Philippines

1.1 Objectives of the Survey 1

CHAPTER 2 FAMILY SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY 7

2.1 Average Family Size 8

CHAPTER 3 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 21

3.1 Type of Building/House 22

CHAPTER 4 WATER, SANITATION AND HANDWASHING FACILITY 41

4.1 Sanitation Facility 42

5.1 Highest Grade Completed of Population 5 Years and Over 59

CHAPTER 6 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 88

6.1 Educational Service Contracting Program for Junior High School 89

CHAPTER 7 HEALTH STATUS 96

7.1 Health Status of Family Members 97

CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS 106

CHAPTER 9 OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION 123

9.1 Availment of Loan and Its Source 124

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 132

CHAPTER 2 - FAMILY SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY HEAD

CHAPTER 3 - HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

Table 3.1 Families by Type of Building/House They Reside by Region

CHAPTER 4 - WATER, SANITATION AND HANDWASHING FACILITY

Table 4.1 Percentage of Families by Sanitation Facilities, According to their

xii | List of Tables

Table 4.3 Percentage of Families in which Handwashing Facilities and

Table 5.1 Population Aged 5 Years or Over by Sex, Highest Grade/Year

List of Tables | xiii

CHAPTER 6 - EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Table 6.1 Population 11 to 24 Years Old Who Availed Educational Service

CHAPTER 7 - HEALTH STATUS

Table 7.1 Percentage of Population by Number of Times a Person Got

CHAPTER 8 - SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS

Table 8.1 Percentage of Families Who Availed/Received Benefits/

xiv | List of Tables

Table 8.2 Percentage of Families Who Availed/Received

CHAPTER 9 - OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

CHAPTER 2 - FAMILY SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY HEAD

Figure 2.1a Average Family Size: Philippines, 2020 APIS 8

CHAPTER 3 - HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

Figure 3.1a Percentage Distribution of Families by Type of Building/House:

xvi | List of Figures

Figure 4.1a Top Three Highest/Lowest Regions by Percentage of Families

Figure 5.1a Percentage of Population Aged 5 Years or Over by Highest

List of Figures | xvii

CHAPTER 6 - EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Figure 6.1a Percentage of Population 11 to 24 Years Old Who Availed

CHAPTER 7 - HEALTH STATUS

Figure 7.1a Percentage of Family Members Who Got Ill/Sick/Injured in the

xviii | List of Figures

CHAPTER 8 - SOCIAL PROTECTION

CHAPTER 9 - OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

Figure 9.1a Percent Distribution of Families Who Availed of Loan from

List of Figures | xix

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY

The APIS is designed to provide estimates for non-income indicators related to

Specifically, it gathers information on indicators that are correlated with poverty in

1.2 SAMPLING DESIGN

1.3 RESPONSE RATE

1.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA