Photo 3: Merchants hand out money to beneficiaries.Ĭosts on the part of the cash transfer recipients can also be compared. Although training non-users would be still be needed for implementation of CCT thru m-money, the existing experience in the community can be helpful in its acceptance. A third had already experienced using SMART Padala, and only 1.5% had used GCash. Partly this was because more of them were SMART subscribers, and there was a greater presence of such outlets in the area (see Photo 2). More of them were familiar with and had experience transacting with SMART Padala centers than with GCash merchant partners.

Furthermore, those who had previous experience using mobile money were also those who reported interest in receiving their CCT in this manner. Those who knew how to use m-money were more willing to have CCTs delivered through their mobile phone. People’s pre-existing knowledge of the use of m-Money was also statistically significant with regard to willingness to use it as a transfer conduit. Overall, a third (34%) reported knowledge of receiving money via the mobile phone. In the background mobile stalls sell toys, clothes and food. Photo 2: Beneficiaries wait for their names to be validated. In the past two years, at least half of CCT funds that have been distributed there were delivered through GRemit, albeit not through a “pure m-money model.’ There is also operational m-money infrastructure in the area (e.g. We considered the technical and financial feasibility question, by visiting an area where GRemit has operated, San Jose, Mindoro Oriental. In terms of using m-money as an alternative, the question is whether it can deliver to beneficiaries at a cost less than other modalities in areas not serviced by Landbank/cashcards, but where access to mobile services are present. By bidding this out, the cost of using other private conduits has gone down from Php75 initially to only Php42. If none of these are feasible, then other groups bid to provide the service. Using Philpost, a government-owned corporation, the cost is 50 pesos. For partner rural banks, the rates vary between 22 to 40 pesos (about US$.50 - $.91). For those using Landbank/cash cards, there is no additional costs except for the initial cost of providing cash cards.

The expense for the DSWD vary per option. These different modes consider the availability of Landbank branches, or in its absence, possible partner rural banks, and postal services (PhilPost). Photo 1: Enumerators prepare tokens for the survey respondentsĪt present, there are various modalities for delivering conditional cash transfers to their intended beneficiaries.

Cash card implementation of dswd