# <mark></mark> _<mark>The 4Ps Beneficiary Update List (BUL):</mark>_

<mark>The BUL is a list of the 4Ps beneficiaries. Updated every two months by DSWD 4Ps staff, the BUL contains information on poor households with children (as identified using the Listahanan and a Proxy Means Test targeting method) that are also beneficiaries of the national 4Ps CCT program. The information that is updated regularly pertains to eligibility conditions required by the 4Ps program. It appears that a number of CTPs directed assistance directly to 4Ps households utilizing this up-to-date beneficiary information.</mark>

# <mark></mark> _<mark>The 4Ps Spot Checks:</mark>_

During the development of unified inter agency CTP monitoring tools, the GoP and DSWD encouraged the use of the 4Ps’ spot check monitoring system for greater coordination and comparability of outcomes. The National Advisory Committee (NAC) suggested that humanitarian agencies implementing CTPs utilize the 4Ps spot check monitoring system, under the overall guidance of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC).<sup>92</sup> Successive periodic updates by UNOCHA of the overall cash coordination effort reported that CWG discussions had been undertaken on using some of the 4Ps spot checks questions in their monitoring tools for greater comparability.

- _<mark>The 4Ps Grievance Redress System (GRS)</mark>_

The Grievance Redress System (GRS) is a component of the 4Ps CCT that allows anyone to direct queries, clarifications, complaints, grievances, and appeals to the appropriate 4Ps GRS offices at the community, provincial, regional and national levels. It has an investigation and verification component, works in coordination with legal and law enforcement authorities, and is linked with an MIS system that compiles the data to monitor the status of the grievances.<sup>93</sup> UNOCHA noted that “the GRS can serve as a vehicle for humanitarian agencies using the 4Ps targeting infrastructure to channel feedback on the additional assistance being provided in the emergency response”.<sup>94</sup> <mark>The extent to which these recommendations were adopted by the inter-agency humanitarian response remains unclear, and where / if they were utilized, specific details on lessons learned are yet to emerge. Nevertheless, the potential value of a more unified overall CTP response facilitated by pre-existing SP information systems is clear, and further research into the streamlining of these information systems into future inter-agency response would add much value.</mark> <mark>The use of these SP information systems for overall response coordination should continue to be explored ex-ante the next disaster. Relevant CTP implementing agencies, UNOCHA, the CWG and DSWD should continue to explore developing and systematizing the use of these and other pre-existing SP systems exante the next disaster. The Listahanan, BUL, spot checks and GRS are each robust information systems, as evaluated during their delivery of the national CCT program.</mark><sup>95</sup> <mark>If leveraged correctly, their pre-existing information and capacity could help to increase coordination of overall CTP response for future, largescale disasters.</mark> <mark>Ultimately, post-Yolanda response documentation and reviews reveal that 1) there has been no rigorous evaluation of the impact of the overall CTP response, and 2) there nevertheless appear to have been issues in CTP coordination leading to coverage gaps and duplication. Cash Working Group memos reported a number of emerging issues in the overall cash transfer programming during the response phase: “poor coverage of inland barangays; critical levels of under coverage in Aklan and Antique; over focus in Northern Iloilo compared to other areas in proximity such as Capiz; dispersal of activities suggest an unbalanced response among the CTPs”.</mark><sup>96</sup> <mark>After humanitarian operations were concluded, the final inter-</mark> 29