Miguel, Gloria Concepcion Elena A.2026-09-182026-09-182005Miguel, G. C. E. (2005). Non-monetary based determinants of poverty status of families in La Union: input to a focused poverty targeting. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University- Open University System. Lakasa ti Sirib, DMMMSU Institutional Repository.https://lakasa.dmmmsu.edu.ph/handle/123456789/2624This study generated non-monetary based determinants of poverty status of families in La Union as basis in formulating policy recommendations for a focused poverty targeting. It sought to determined the profile of poor and non-poor families in terms of identified non-monetary dimensions of poverty and find out significant differences in their characteristics. In addition, the poverty targeting mechanisms in the implementation of the Operation Rang-ay iti Barangay (ORB) in La Union were described and used to supplement the formulation of policy recommendations for a focused poverty targeting. This study used the descriptive research designs and was conducted ion La Union using various sources of data. Information on the profile of families was generated form the 2002 APIS Public Use Files for La union. On the other hand, information on the poverty targeting mechanisms was based on the results of personal interview and focused group discussions with selected stakeholders of the ORB. The results were supplemented by documentary analysis. Data were analyze using frequencies, percentage, ranks, weighted means, chi-square test and Z-test binomial logistic regression. Findings reveal the following results: Most of the heads of poor families belonged to the age group 40-49 years, with a mean age of 52 years. Most of them were males, elementary graduate, employed in permanent jobs, majority of whom were own- account workers. Around half of them had five members or less. Majority of the members were of working ages who carried the economic burden of 89 dependents. The majority of members of school-age were attending school and school participation was highest at the elementary level. Most members of poor families had some elementary education. Majority of them were into family sustenance activities, most of whom were own-account workers and were employed in the agriculture sector. Laborers and unskilled workers were prominent, with a number of farmers, forestry workers and fishermen. These workers, however, worked on a permanent basis. Majority of them did not get ill and among those who got ill, only two-fifths visited a health facility for consultation. There was a low participation rate in people's organizations and non-government organizations . Likewise, the coverage of health insurance plans was low, except for the public Philippine Insurance Corporation. The majority of them owned or had owner like possession of their houses and lots, although these were noted to be small. Single houses were most common for them. Majority of them had strong roofs but a lesser percentage lived in houses made of strong outer walls. In terms of facilities and amenities, around one-third did not have electricity and most of them relied on less sanitary sources of water supply like the dug well. Although majority of them had sanitary toilet facilities like the water-sealed, a number of them still used open pit and others did not have any toilet at all. The most common household amenity they owned was the radio/stereo/VCD. On the other hand, most of the non-poor families were headed by males, aged 40-49 years, with a mean age of 51 years, had some college education or higher level of education. Majority of them had permanent job, almost one-half of whom were salary or wage earners. Almost three-fourths had five members, majority of whom were of working ages who carried the economic burden of 58 dependents. The majority of members of school-age were currently attending school and school participation was highest in high school. Most members had some secondary and post-secondary education. As regards employment characteristics, most had members who derived salaries and wages, absorbed in the services sector, laborers and unskilled workers, and worked on permanent basis. A significant number, however, were professionals. The majority of them did not get ill and among those who got ill, less than half visited a health facility. Participation in POs and NGOs was low. In terms of HIPs, only the PhilHealth covered a significant percentage while the others covered less. The majority of non-poor families owned or had ownerlike possession of their houses and lots, almost all of which were single houses. Although, most occupied small houses, a significant number lived in bigger houses. Majority had strong roof materials but a lesser percentage lived in houses made of strong outer walls. In terms of facilities and amenities, almost all of them had electricity and majority used safer sources of water supply and sanitary toilet facility. Majority of them had household amenities and conveniences except car/jeep/motorcycle and washing machine, which were owned by less than half of them. There were significant differences between poor and non-poor families in terms of majority of the identified non-monetary dimensions of poverty. Those that were found to significantly determine poverty status of a family using the logistic model were the following: age and highest grade completed of family head, family size, economic activity engaged in, major industry and occupation group, membership in POs/NGOs, membership in PhilHealth and other HIPs, tenure status of house and lot, floor area of housing unit, construction materials of walls, main source of water supply, type of toilet facility, and ownership of household amenities. In terms of poverty targeting mechanisms of the ORB, it was found out that the Provincial Government of La Union applied the convergent policy as demonstrated by the process of consultation, and multisectoral, multilevel and inter-agency cooperation. The operation of the ORB followed the generic planning process. There were areas, however, at the various processes and stages that need to be improved. On the whole, the ORB was perceived by the respondents as highly responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries. The policy recommendations put forward in this study encompassed a wide range of concerns, some of them intertwined, which speak of the multidimensionality of poverty. These were evaluated as very highly acceptable. In the light of these findings, it is concluded that the poor families are at a disadvantaged position compared to their non-poor counterparts. The dimensions in which there are noted to have significant differences between poor and non-poor families are subject to program intervention, the prioritization of which can be based on the magnitude of disparity. Likewise, there are various non-monetary based indicators that significantly determine the poverty status of families indicating that poverty is multidimensional. The significant indicators can also serve as basis in priority program intervention. It is also concluded that the ORB has been institutionalized as the government’s program to fight poverty but it continues to face some challenges. The rating of its services as highly responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries could be an inspiration to the implementers. It is recommended that anti-poverty program implementers should consider the areas where the poor families are disadvantaged and where there are significant differences between poor and non-poor families. Along the policy recommendations and following the policy of convergence, concerned entities and institutions should craft specific policies, draft strategic and operational guidelines and allocate enough resources for their adoption and successful implementation. Adopting to the situation in La Union, the ORB should sustain its battle cry “Continuity and Innovation.”en-USThesis