final report - ilo

2009 PILOT SURVEY ON COMMERCIAL

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN (CSEC)

FINAL REPORT

NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE and

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

Philippines

2009 pilot SURVEY ON Commercial sexual

exploitation of children (CSeC)

FINAL REPORT

NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE and

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION Philippines

Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO v

CPH Census of Population and Housing

CSEC Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children

CSPro Census and Survey Processing System

DWSD Department of Social Welfare and Development

EA Enumeration Area

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

HH HOusehold

ILO International Labour Organization

IPEC International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour

LOH Listing of Households

MS Master Sample

NCR National Capital Region

NGO Non-Government Organization

NSO National Statistics Office

PPES Probability Proportional to Estimated Size

PSU Primary Sampling Unit

RR Response Rate

SCY Survey on Children and Youth

SIMPOC Statistical Monitoring Information Programme on Child Labour

UWFCL Unconditional Worst Forms of Child Labour

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO vii

Page No. Foreword

iii

List of Acronyms v

List of Tables xi

List of Figures xiv

Executive Summary xv

Map of the Philippines xix

Map of Cebu xx

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1-2

1.1 Background and Rationale 1

1.2 Objectives of the Pilot Survey 2

CHAPTER 2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 3-12

2.1 Target Population 3

2.2 Sample Design 3

2.3 Data Collection Strategies 4

2.3.1 Approach 1 (List and Enumerate Approach) 5

2.3.2 Approach 2 (Referral Approach) 5

2.4 Data Collection Instruments 5

2.5 Weighting 6 2.5.1 Base Weight 6 2.5.2 Adjustment for Unit Non-response 7 2.5.3 Post-stratification Calibration Adjustment 9 2.5.4 Final Weights 9 2.5.5 Estimation 9

CHAPTER 3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 13-17

3.1 Preparatory Activities 13

3.2 Field Operation 15

3.3 Data Processing 16

CONTENTS

viii Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO

Contents Page No. CHAPTER 4. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PILOT SURVEY 18-41

4.1 Overview of the Survey Operation 18

4.2 Weighted Results 21

4.2.1 Approach 1 21

4.2.2 Approach 2 (Without Referral)

4.2.3 Approach 2 (With Referral)

33

41

CHAPTER 5. LESSONS LEARNED 42-46

5.1 Interviewing the CSEC Households and the CSEC Cases of Refusals, Denial and Indifference

42

5.2 CSEC Questionnaires: Format, Content and Flow of Questions

43

5.3 Comparing the Two Data Collection Strategies 46

5.4 The NGO Partner as Interviewer 46

CHAPTER 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 47-48

APPENDICES Appendix A. Detailed Tables 49-79

Approach 1

A1.1 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old by Selected Demographic Characteristics

and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

51

A1.2 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

52

A1.3 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Probable CSEC by Selected

Demographic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

A1.4 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected


A1.5 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Socio-

economic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

53

54

55

Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO ix

Contents A1.6 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Work

Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

A1.7 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Knowledge and Attitude About Trafficking and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

A1.8 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Health

Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009 Approach 2

A2.1 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old by Selected Demographic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

A2.2 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

A2.3 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Probable CSEC by Selected


A2.4 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected


A2.5 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Socio-

economic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009 A2.6 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Work


A2.7 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Knowledge and Attitude About Trafficking and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

A2.8 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Health


A1 Standard Error of Selected Characteristics of Identified CSEC, Cebu City: 2009 (Approach 1)

A2 Standard Error of Selected Characteristics of Identified CSEC, Cebu City: 2009 (Approach 2)

Page No.

58

62

63

65

66

67

68

69

72

75

76

78

79

x Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO

Contents Page No.

Appendix B. Survey Forms and Questionnaires 81-98

B1 LOH Form 1 83

B2 SCY Form 1 84

B3 Probing Questions for SCY Form 1 88

B4 SCY Form 2 89

B5 Probing Questions for SCY Form 2 to Determine CSEC

97

B6 Blank Form for List of Sample Households 98

Appendix C. Persons Involved in the 2009 Pilot Survey on CSEC

99-102

GLOSSARY 103

Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO xi

Table No. List of Tables Page Approach 1

A Projected Population of Persons 5 to 25 Years Old by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

18

B Number of Children Listed/Enumerated as Probable CSEC and Identified as CSEC by Type of Approach and by PSU, Cebu City: 2009

19

C Summary Distribution of PSUs and Total Children Listed by Type of Approach, Cebu City: 2009

20

D Number of Households and Children Referred by the Respondent in Approach 2 as Probable CSEC in Approach 2, by PSU, Cebu City: 2009

21

1.1 Number and Percent Distribution of Probable CSEC by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

22

1.2 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

22

1.3 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC Whether or Not They Can Read and Write a Simple Message, Currently Attending School or Not Reasons for not Currently Attending School and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

23

1.4 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Marital Status, Whether or Not They Have Child(ren), Current Number of Children And by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

24

1.5 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Residence Status, Activity Done in Previous Residence, Reasons for Leaving Previous Residence and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

25

1.6 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Job Status during the Past 12 Months, Age When Started Working and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

26

1.7 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Reasons for Choosing Present Work and by Sex Cebu City: 2009

27

xii Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO

Table No. List of Tables Page Approach 1

1.8 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Type of Clients, Number of Clients Met Daily, Whether or Not the Clients Used Condom and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

28

1.9 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC on How Often They had Conflict with Clients or had been Forced for Non-cooperation and by Sex Cebu City: 2009

28

1.10 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Average Pay per Day, Where Income Goes To and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

29

1.11 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Source of Knowledge on Trafficking, Persons Involved in Trafficking, Responsible for Child Trafficking and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

30

1.12 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Most Frequently Experienced Health Problems Whom They Consulted and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

31

1.13 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Awareness on HIV/AIDS, How HIV/AIDS is Transmitted, With or Without Knowledge on How to Reduce the Risk of Contracting HIV/AIDS Ways on How the Risk Can be Reduced and by Sex Cebu City: 2009

32

Approach 2

2.1 Number and Percent Distribution of Probable CSEC by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

33

2.2 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Age Group, Highest Grade Completed and by Sex Cebu City: 2009

34

2.3 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC Whether or Not They Were Currently Attending School, Reasons for not Currently Attending School and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

34

2.4 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Marital Status, Whether or Not They Have Child(ren), Current Number of Children and by Sex Cebu City: 2009

35

Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO xiii

Table No. List of Tables Page

2.5 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Residence Status, Reasons for Leaving Previous Residence and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

35

2.6 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Job Status during the Past 12 Months, Age When Started Working and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

36

2.7 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Reasons for Choosing Present Work and by Sex

37

Cebu City: 2009

2.8 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Number of Clients Met Daily, Whether or Not Clients Used Condom and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

37

2.9 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC

Who have Heard About Child Trafficking, Sources of Knowledge on Trafficking and by Sex Cebu City: 2009

38

2.10 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Health Problems Experienced and by Sex Cebu City: 2009

39

2.11 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Awareness on HIV/AIDS, on How HIV/AIDS is Transmitted, on How to Reduce the Risk of Contracting HIV/AIDS and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

39

2.12 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old by Age Group, Cebu City: 2009

41

xiv Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO

Figure No. List of Figures Page

Approach 1

1.1

Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Highest Grade Completed, Cebu City: 2009

23

1.2 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Number of Siblings, Cebu City: 2009

24

1.3 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Birth Order Cebu City: 2009

25

1.4 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Activities before Current Work, Cebu City: 2009

27

1.5 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Whether or Not They can Leave their Current Work and Whether or Not their Family has Knowledge of their Work, Cebu City: 2009

29

1.6 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC Who have Heard about Child Trafficking by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

30

1.7 Percent Distribution of Identified Female CSEC Who had an Abortion and Number of Times They had an Abortion Cebu City: 2009

31

1.8 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC Who were Aware and Who Engaged in Cybersex and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

32

Approach 2

2.1

Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Number of Siblings and by Birth Order, Cebu City: 2009

36

2.2 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Average Pay per Day and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

38

2.3 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Awareness on Cybersex and Whether or Not They Engaged in Cybersex by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

40

Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO xv

` The unconditional worst forms of child labour (UWFCL) is generally marked of hiddenness and elusiveness, and such is the target population of the Pilot Survey of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC). The primary targets were CSEC whose ages ranged from 5-17 years.

The Statistical Monitoring Information Programme on Child Labour (SIMPOC), which is the statistical unit of the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) collaborated with the Philippine National Statistics Office (NSO) for the conduct of a pilot CSEC survey in Cebu City. The project was basically aimed at testing two data collection strategies using the household-based list and enumerate approach and household referral approach. Doing a child labor survey was not new to Philippine NSO but the data collection for CSEC posed a very new challenge. The sensitivity of several questions in the CSEC pilot survey required that an NGO (Non-Government Organization) partner be tapped for the data collection activity. The data collection was undertaken in partnership with a non-government organization (NGO) with prior experience in collecting data related to child labor.

The sample design for the CSEC pilot survey adopted the sample design for household surveys used by the Philippine NSO with appropriate modification. The sampling design was epsem within domain (equal selection probabilities within domain). The initial step in the construction of weights was to determine the unit’s base weight which was simply defined as the inverse of its selection probabilities. In general, a three-step weighting procedure was used:

Step 1. Computation of base weight for each stratum; Step 2. Adjustment of base weights for non-response; and Step 3. Post-stratification calibration adjustment of weights

to make the estimates conform to some known population totals.

In terms of data collection, two strategies were adopted for the CSEC Pilot

Survey: (1) list and enumerate households approach and (2) sample household referral approach. Each approach covered half of the 46 primary sampling units (PSUs) selected in Cebu City. The list and enumerate approach employed an entire process of collecting data from every household existing in the area of enumeration (EA). This involved listing all housing units and households in selected sample areas similar to a listing done in a census.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xvi Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO

The sample household referral approach used the list of sample households and from these households referrals were made. The first sample household was interviewed and was asked for referral of household whom they knew to have a case of CSEC within Cebu City. The interviewed CSEC were then asked to refer other CSEC whom they knew within Cebu City until there were no more referrals. The enumerator then proceeded to the second sample household and repeated the process. Both approaches used the same household and individual questionnaires. Lists of probing questions were used to identify eligible respondents for the Individual Questionnaire. The probing questions which asked about the child’s past time activities, place of hang-out, time of coming home and vices, guided the interviewer to determine the possibility of a CSEC activity.

After listing the children, they were first classified as probable CSEC based

on the probing questions included in the survey instruments. Children who were considered as probable CSEC included those persons who were 5 to 25 years old who manifested the profile of a CSEC and who qualified to be administered with the individual questionnaire (based on the probing questions). From these “probable CSEC”, children were screened as “identified CSEC” by asking additional probing questions during the individual interview. Hence, children were classified as “identified CSEC” and included in the list if they (a) admitted that they were CSEC; or (b) denied CSEC activity but were tagged as CSEC by the interviewer based on the answers in the probing questions in the individual CSEC questionnaire Using Approach 1, the estimated number of probable CSEC aged 5-25 years in Cebu City was about 4.5 thousand individuals. This comprised 1.1 percent of the total children 5-25 years old in Cebu City. The sex ratio was 71 males for every 100 females. The number of probable CSEC belonging to age group 5-17 years reached 1.9 thousand or 0.79 percent of the total 5-17 years old in Cebu City. Meanwhile, out of the total number of probable CSEC aged 5-25 years old, the estimated number of identified CSEC or those who admit that they are really CSEC numbered about 1.3 thousand individuals or 0.3 percent of the total 5-25 years old of Cebu City. Of this number, 381 individuals were aged 5-17 years old, accounting to 0.16 percent of the total 5-17 years old in Cebu City. For Approach 2, a total of 13.1 thousand probable CSEC aged 5 to 25 years were estimated which was about 3.3 percent of the total children 5 to 25 years old in Cebu City. More than half of them were females, indicating a sex ratio of 92 males for every 100 females. There were about 8.0 thousand probable CSEC aged 5 to 17 years old which is about 3.3 percent of the total 5-17 years old in Cebu City.

Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO xvii

From the 13.1 thousand probable CSEC in Approach 2, the estimated number of identified CSEC reached 7,617 individual or 1.9 percent of the total children 5-25 years old of Cebu City. There were more female identified CSEC posting a sex ratio of 63 males for every 100 females. Identified CSEC age 5 to 17 years old numbered about 4.3 thousand which is about 1.8 percent of the total 5-17 years old in Cebu City. The problems encountered in the data collection included: limited amount of information shared - due to presence of other people, denial of CSEC activities (parents and CSEC themselves denied their activities), perceptions of work (CSEC was not regarded as work), among others.

Getting information from individuals who engaged in activities away from public view was certainly difficult. In a household setting, identifying CSEC who was probably doing domestic activities would require a lot of observation. The interviewer requires tact and discretion to get the trust of the CSEC. Thus, to pry into their personal lives, the following are being recommended:

• Interview the CSEC outside the house to avoid eavesdroppers. It may be in a park or other place where the respondent can open up.

• Extend the enumeration period to build rapport. Invite CSEC for a series of social- therapeutic activities in order to build trust and confidence.

• Extend the reference period to cover stay-in CSEC. CSEC who may have been living away from home and those who may have been trafficked may not have been covered.

• Provide more priming questions to identify real CSEC.

BATAN ES

R bli f th Phili i

N L U Z O N S T R A I T

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE

Philippine Map2009

BABUYANCHANNEL

C E B U

Cebu City

SIBUYAN SEA

VISAYAN SEA

Map of Cebu

CEBU

BOHOL

CAMOTES SEA

S U L U S E A

BOHOL SEA

Region VII- Central Visayas(Bohol, Cebu, Negros Oriental,

Siquijor)

M O R O G U L F D A V A O GULF

Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO xix

xx Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO

Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO – ILO 1

1. 1 Background and Rationale The Statistical Monitoring Information Programme on Child Labour (SIMPOC), which is the statistical unit of the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC), is implementing a series of activities under its global project GLO/05/50/USA “Survey methodologies for national level estimates of children in the unconditional worst forms of child labor (UWFCL)”, that are envisaged to lead to the development of suitable survey methodologies to arrive at national level estimates of UWFCL1.

The ILO-SIMPOC, in its technical background reports for the global project, suggested core survey methodology (including sampling design and questionnaires) to compile reliable national level estimates of children in selected UWFCL sectors. To develop further the survey design with a view to make it operational for field surveys, the ILO/IPEC required the conduct of a pilot survey test for those in the UWFCL, termed as “commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC).”

As such, the ILO/IPEC contracted the National Statistics Office (NSO) of the Philippines to undertake a pilot survey on CSEC. In consultation with ILO/IPEC, the Philippine NSO developed the data collection methodology/strategies and questionnaire design for a CSEC household-based survey. The pilot survey was named SURVEY ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH (SCY) targeting children 5 to 17 years old. The NSO which is the primary statistical agency of the Philippine government has already conducted two surveys on children in collaboration with ILO: the 1995 and the 2001 Survey on Children. The Philippine NSO was also commissioned in 2005 by ILO-IPEC/SIMPOC to pilot test a model questionnaire on child labor. Doing a child labor survey was not new to the Philippine NSO but data collection for CSEC posed a very new challenge. Unlike regular household surveys conducted by the office where most of the household respondents willingly and openly cooperate, and share social and economic information about the household and its members, there was the perception that respondents for the CSEC pilot survey may tend to shy away from data collectors. The sensitivity of several questions in the CSEC pilot survey required that an NGO (Non-Government

1 Terms of Reference of Service Contract between ILO and NSO, Annex 2, page 1.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

2 Philippine Pilot Survey on CSEC, NSO-ILO

Organization) partner be tapped for gathering data among target respondents. Thus, data collection was undertaken in partnership with an NGO that has prior experience in collecting data related to child labor. Among areas known with cases of CSEC, Cebu City was chosen to be the area of study for this pilot survey. Cebu City is part of Cebu province which lies in the central part of the Philippines.

1.2 Objectives of the Pilot Survey

The following are the objectives of the survey: a. To test two data collection strategies that is, Approach 1 (household- based

list and enumerate approach) and Approach 2 (household referral approach);

b. To pilot test the questionnaire in terms of clarity, logical sequence of the questions and adequacy of the response category;

c. To identify problems that would likely be encountered during the data collection using two strategies; and

d. To provide baseline information of CSEC in Cebu City.


The CSEC pilot survey adopted the sample design for household surveys being conducted by the Philippine NSO with appropriate modification. Two approaches were used to test the data collection for the pilot survey. The first approach (Approach 1) was to list and enumerate all households in sample areas. The second one (Approach 2) was to interview sample households in the enumeration area (EA) and ask for referrals from these households. 2.1 Target Population Under the Philippine Law, Republic Act 7610 and Republic Act 9208, a CHILD is defined as a person below 18 years of age or one who is over 18 but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. The target population for the CSEC pilot survey was all household population whose usual place of residence is Cebu City. Specifically, the survey covered all persons aged 5 to 25 years old who considered the country as their primary place of residence irrespective of citizenship. The primary targets were the commercially sexually exploited children under 18 years of age. The age was extended to 25 years to cover a wider range of population and to capture those who were not reporting their real age.

The pilot survey was basically a household survey; it did not cover those in collective dwellings such as hotels, motels and prisons, among others. The homeless were likewise not included.

2.2 Sample Design The Philippine NSO uses the 2003 Master Sample (MS) design in the conduct of household surveys such as the Labor Force Survey and the National Demographic and Health Survey. The MS is a three-stage sample design with barangays2 or group of contiguous barangays as primary sampling units (PSUs). The domain is the region allowing the desired reliability at the regional level. The sample design for the pilot survey was patterned after the 2003 MS with some modifications to conform with the objective of providing baseline information of

2 Barangay is the smallest political unit in the country.

CHAPTER 2

SURVEY METHODOLOGY


CSEC in Cebu City. Thus, the pilot survey adopted a stratified, three-stage cluster sampling design where Cebu City was regarded as the domain of estimation. Stages of Selection

Selection of Sample Primary Sampling Units (PSUs). As used in the 2003

MS, a PSU is a cluster of households with clear and stable boundaries. The PSUs were selected with probability proportional to estimated size (PPES). The measure of size used was the number of households in the PSU according to the 2000 Census of Population and Housing (2000 CPH). A total of 92 PSUs were selected to represent Cebu City with the intention of using half of the PSUs for each data collection approach (46 PSUs each). Due to administrative and financial considerations, only 23 PSUs were selected as samples for each data collection approach of the CSEC pilot survey.

Selection of Sample Enumeration Areas (EAs). In the second stage, in

each PSU, EAs were selected with probability proportional to the number of households in the EA. An EA is defined as an area with discernable boundaries consisting of approximately 350 contiguous households. These EAs are the 2000 Census Enumeration Areas. A total of 46 sample EAs were selected for the CSEC pilot survey (23 EAs for each approach). The lists of housing units in the sample EAs were updated using the lists from the City Planning and Development Office, Census of Agriculture and Fisheries and Listing of Households from the 2000 CPH.

Selection of Sample Housing Units (For Approach 2 only). In the third

stage, from each sample EA, housing units were selected using systematic sampling. For operational considerations, at most 40 housing units were selected per sample EA. All households in the housing units were enumerated except when the housing unit has more than three households. In those cases, only three households were enumerated.

For Approach 1, selection of housing units per EA was not necessary in as

much as all the housing units were listed and enumerated following a set of guidelines. (Refer to detailed guidelines in the Enumerator’s Manual.)

2.3 Data Collection Strategies

Two data collection strategies or approaches were adopted for the CSEC pilot survey. The first approach was to list and enumerate all households in an EA. The second approach, a referral approach, was to interview sample households in an EA and to ask for referrals from these households and from the referred individuals as well.


2.3.1 Approach 1 (List and Enumerate Approach). For this approach, all housing units and households in the 23 sample PSUs were visited and interviewed. Using the Listing Sheet (LOH Form 1, refer to Appendix B1), households with members 5 to 25 years old were identified and tagged thru an indicator in LOH Form 1. Each target household was assigned a household questionnaire (SCY Form 1). An individual questionnaire (SCY Form 2) was administered if there was a probable CSEC identified in the household. Additional probing questions were asked from the individual who was classified as a probable CSEC to appropriately verify if he/she can be classified as CSEC.

2.3.2 Approach 2 (Referral Approach). In this approach, all sample

households in the other 23 sample PSUs were interviewed using SCY Form 1. Like Approach 1, for every member 5-25 years old, probing questions were asked to determine if the individual is a probable CSEC or not.

Once identified, SCY Form 2 was administered to the probable

CSEC. Also, probing questions were asked from these individuals to verify if they can be classified as CSEC. These children were also asked to refer other children who reside in Cebu City whom they knew to be CSEC. Similarly, the same interview process was employed to these referrals. The enumerator then proceeds to the second sample household and repeats the same procedure.

2. 4 Data Collection Instruments

This pilot survey made use of the following set of survey instruments: Approach 1 Forms 1) LOH Form 1 or the Listing Sheet (Appendix B1). This one-page form has

six questions which asks for the last name, first name, nickname/alias of the household head, complete address of the household, total number of household members, and if there is any household member aged 5 to 25 years. This listing form screens out the household which will be interviewed using the household questionnaire;

2) SCY Form 1 or the Household Questionnaire (Appendix B2). This is a three-page form (excluding the sheet for Observations/Remarks) used to gather information on the profile of the household in terms of the demographic and economic characteristics of all household members. A List of Probing Questions (Appendix B3) was included as part of the household questionnaire to clearly identify whom among the members aged 5-25 years is eligible for interview using SCY Form 2. A total of nine probing questions


were asked from household members aged 5-25 years after accomplishing all the questions in the main form (SCY Form 1).

3) SCY Form 2 or the Individual Questionnaire (Appendix B4). An eight-page

questionnaire with nine (9) sections covering questions on socio-economic characteristics of the respondent, work history, health, knowledge and attitude about trafficking, knowledge about HIV/AIDS and awareness on cybersex. A section for referral of CSEC is found on the last page. Included also are sections for the evaluation of the respondent by the interviewer and observations/remarks of the supervisor. A List of Probing Questions (Appendix B5) containing 12 questions was also included as part of the individual questionnaire to find out whether the identified individual in SCY Form 1 is eligible to answer succeeding sections in SCY Form 2. The probing questions were asked after completing the socio-economic characteristics (Section A) and before asking information about the work history (Section B) and succeeding sections.

Approach 2 Forms

Approach 2 Forms used the same Household and Individual Questionnaires. The sample households for interview ranging from two to 37 sample households per EA are listed in the List of Sample Households or SCY Form 3 (Refer to a blank sample of SCY Form 3 in Appendix B6).

2.5 Weighting

Weights are important in the analysis of survey data especially in situations

where the sample units have different probabilities of selection. The sampling design is epsem within domain (equal selection probabilities within domain). The initial step in the construction of weights is to determine the unit’s base weight which is simply defined as the inverse of its selection probabilities.

In general, a three-step weighting procedure was used:

Step 1. Computation of base weight for each stratum; Step 2. Adjustment of base weights for non-response; and Step 3. Post-stratification calibration adjustment of weights to make the

estimates conform to some known population totals.

2.5.1 Base weights

Calculations of the base weights included probabilities of selection of primary sampling units, enumeration areas, and households. For Approach 1, the selection probability for the third stage is one since all the housing units and households were visited and interviewed.


( ) hh h dh d

h h h d

h h d

h d

MM c nP h a fM M M N

a c nM N

αβα

α αβ

αβγ = × × = =

= = (2.1)

Thus, the unit base weight for each PSU is defined as:

1h dh

h h d d

M Nwa c n fαβγ = = = (2.2)

2.5.2 Adjustment for Unit Non-response

In Step 2, base weights were adjusted to compensate for the losses in the sample outcome due to non-response. In this step, household level non-response adjustment was performed by using weighted data by PSU level.

where h index denoting the stratum. α index denoting the PSU. β index denoting the enumeration area (EA) selected from

the αth PSU in the hth stratum. γ index denoting the household selected from the β th EA

belonging to the αth PSU in the hth stratum. d index denoting domain. nd total sample size (number of households) for domain d. Nd total number of households in domain d. Mh total number of households in stratum h. Note that

h hM M αα

=∑ .

Mhα total number of households in the αth PSU from the hth stratum . Note that h hM Mα αβ

β

= ∑ .

Mhαβ total number of households in the β th EA belonging to the αth PSU from hth stratum.

ah number of sample PSUs from the hth stratum. ch number of sample households from the β th EA in the αth

PSU belonging to the hth stratum.. This is determined as d h

hh

f Mca

= .

/d d df n N=

desired sampling fraction for the dth domain.

1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage


Household-level Response Rate (RR) Using the household final interview codes, the household-level response rate

was computed separately for each sample PSU by dividing the total responding households by the total eligible households or:

ˆ ( )h HHαβπ =Household-Level Response Rate = Number of Responding Households

Number of Eligible Households Where: HH = household

Eligible households are households with interview status codes of 1, 2, 3 and 7 in SCY form 1, while responding households are those with interview status code of 1. Below are the final interview status codes as indicated in SCY Form 1:

1 Completed Household Questionnaire 2 Refusal 3 Temporarily away/Household not around 7 Other Household non-response (critical areas, flooded areas)

The corresponding household-level weighting class adjustment was computed as one divided by the weighted household response rate for each sample PSUs.

1( , )ˆ ( , )h

Adj nr HHwca HHαβπ

=

where: wca = weighting-class adjustment

Person-level Response Rate Person-level non-response adjustment was done by using individual-level

response rate calculating formula. As with the household adjustment component, the person-level adjustment component was computed as one divided by the weighted response rate for each weighting class.

Similarly, the Individual-Level Response Rate was computed by dividing the

number of responding individuals by the number of eligible individuals.

ˆ ( )h Indαβπ = Individual-Level Response Rate = Number of Responding Individuals Number of Eligible Individuals

Where: Ind = Individual


Eligible individuals are those with interview status codes of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in SCY form 2, while responding individuals are those with interview code of 1. The final interview codes for individuals as indicated in SCY Form 2 are the following:

1 Completed Interview 2 Refusal 3 Household not around 4 Partly completed 6 Others, specify

The corresponding person-level weighting class adjustment was computed as

one divided by the weighted person-level response rate for each weighting cell.

1( , )ˆ ( , )h

Adj nr Indwca Indαβπ

=

where: wca = weighting-class adjustment Ind = Individual The final non-response adjustment weight is computed as:

( ) ( , )* ( , )Adj nr Adj nr HH Adj nr Ind=

2.5.3 Post-stratification Calibration Adjustment

In the final stage of weighting (Step 3), calibration adjustment was done to adjust weights to the 2009 population projections aged 5 to 25 years (age groupings are 5-9, 10-14, 15-17 and 18-25).

Adj (popn) =

Projected Population (by sex, age group) Weighted Estimates (by sex, age group)

2.5.4 Final Weights

The final weights assigned to each responding unit were computed as the

product of the base weights, the non-response adjustments and post-stratification calibration adjustment. The final weights were used in all analysis to produce estimates of population parameters.

( ) * ( )* ( )hFinal weight Fw w Adj nr Adj popnαβγ=

2.5.5 Estimation It is expected that most of the estimates to be generated from CSEC

survey will be in the form of totals, means, proportions or ratios. Using the final


weights (including adjustments), how the estimates of such parameters can be produced and their corresponding variance estimates are described below.

Estimation of Population Total

The population total is estimated as:

ˆ ˆd h h h

h h

Y w y Yαβγ αβγα β γ

= =∑∑∑∑ ∑ (2.3)

where h h hY w yαβγ αβγ

α β γ

= ∑∑∑ estimates the stratum total for the PSUs.

Thus, the above formula can be regarded as the sum of stratum totals.

The variance of the total can be estimated as:

2

2 2

1ˆ ˆ( ) ( ) (1 )

1 1( ) , and ,1

hd h h h

h h h

h h h h h h h hh h

av Y v Y f sa

s y y y w y y ya aα α αβγ αβγ α

α β γ α

−= = −

= − = =−

∑ ∑

∑ ∑∑ ∑ (2.4)

Estimation of a Ratio

The population ratio can be derived as:

ˆˆˆd

dd

YRX

= (2.5)

where ˆ ˆ and d dY X are defined using (2.3) for the characteristics y and x respectively. This estimator is referred to as the combined ratio estimator. It can also be used to estimate the population mean by letting the x’s equal to 1. Similarly, it can also be used to estimate proportions by letting the y’s assume a value of 1 if the unit possess the attribute of interest and 0 otherwise and let x’s be equal to 1. Its variance can be estimated as:

{ }

22 2

22

ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ( ) ( ) ( , )ˆ ˆ( ) 2ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ

1 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ( ) ( ) 2 ( , )ˆ

d d d dd d

d d d d

d d d d d dd

v Y v X cov Y Xv R RY X Y X

v Y R v X R cov Y XX

⎧ ⎫⎪ ⎪= + −⎨ ⎬⎪ ⎪⎩ ⎭

= + −

(2.6)


The variances, ˆ ˆ( ) and ( )d dv Y v X , are computed using (2.4). The covariance term is computed as:

ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ( , ) ( , )d d d dcov Y X cov Y X= (2.7)

where:

,

,

1ˆ ˆ( , ) (1 )

1 ( )( )1

hd d h h xy

h h

h xy h h h hh

acov Y X f sa

s y y x xa αβ α αβ α

α

−= −

= − −−

∑

∑ (2.8)

Estimates of Sampling Errors

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors:

nonsampling errors and sampling errors.

Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors.

Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the

CSEC pilot survey to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. Sampling

errors are measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample,

it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the CSEC pilot survey sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the CSEC pilot survey is a STATA procedure. This procedure used the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions.


The Taylor linearization method treats any percentage or average as a ratio estimate, r = y/x, where y represents the total sample value for variable y, and x represents the total number of cases in the group or subgroup under consideration. The variance of r is computed using (2.6).

The procedure also computes confidence limits for the estimates.


PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 Preparatory Activities Consultative Meetings To brace its familiarity on CSEC related matters, the Philippine NSO project team consulted with agencies who are more experienced with CSEC and child- related concerns. The following agencies were invited to a series of consultative meetings for guidance on the planned CSEC pilot survey:

• Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) • Bureau of Women and Young Workers, Department of Labor and

Employment • National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women • International Justice Mission • Council for the Welfare of Children

The meetings included orientation on the rights and protection of children and

CSEC legal matters as well as techniques on interviewing children. There were also suggestions for possible areas to pretest the questionnaires and referrals to possible contacts who can be tapped for further consultation. Development of the Questionnaire and Conduct of Pretest The CSEC individual questionnaire to be used for the pilot survey was crafted following the questionnaire provided by ILO-IPEC; this was also the CSEC questionnaire used by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics in their 2008 pilot survey. Essential elements focusing on the CSEC characteristics were lifted from the said questionnaire. Comments for the initial draft of the questionnaire were solicited during the consultative meetings with the CSEC-related agencies. The questionnaires were then revised according to their suggestions.

CHAPTER 3


The pretest for the individual questionnaire was planned to be carried out in a child-care institution under DSWD. The pretest was necessary to test the sequence, as well as the flow and clarity of questions and adequacy of the response categories before being used in the pilot survey. The aim was to come up with a final questionnaire that would be both interviewer- and respondent-friendly.

The pretest was done at DSWD-Marillac Hills, an institution for sexually

abused girls below 18 years old. Prior to the conduct of pretest-interview of the children, the interviewers were oriented on the manner of dealing with children. The interviewers were reminded to strike a balance between getting information and prying into the children’s personal lives; this is to protect the emotional rights of children under their care. It was further recommended to avoid questions on rape.

Using the questionnaire, the average time spent in interviewing a child was 22

minutes. Based on the pretest experience, several terms were replaced with words that would fit the Philippine setting. The question on rape was excluded from the individual questionnaire due to the belief that the child respondent may have disturbing emotional burden while sharing her traumatic experience on sexual abuse. A section on awareness on cybersex was added.

Choosing the NGO for Data Collection

The task of implementing the data collection would heavily rely on the data collectors. Since the Philippine NSO does not have the experienced manpower to interview those who are considered CSEC, a local agency skilled with handling child-related concerns would be ideal to handle the data gathering activities. Their familiarity and knowledge on the local culture and dialect would help facilitate their data gathering effort. The ILO-Manila provided a list of NGOs from where NSO could select the data collector for the CSEC pilot survey. None of those organizations from the list however, responded to the invitation. Further coordination was done to contact other NGOs with Cebu-based office who may be tapped for the data collection activity. Bidlisiw Foundation, Inc. responded to the call and was contracted by NSO to perform the task. Bidlisiw Foundation Inc. is a child, youth, women and family-focused social development organization based in Cebu City. Conduct of Training for Supervisors and Enumerators

There was a two-day training for data collection for the CSEC pilot survey. A day before the training, an orientation meeting with the supervisors was conducted by the Philippine NSO to plan out for the training and the succeeding activities of the CSEC pilot survey.


During the orientation meeting, a list of probing questions was crafted to aid interviewers in distinguishing a child who is engaged in CSEC from the other working children. Further on, the data collection strategy was arranged such that only the experienced NGO personnel will take part in administering the individual CSEC questionnaire. Meanwhile, the NGO hired enumerators (EN) was assigned with the task of listing the households and accomplishing the household questionnaires.

There were about 75 participants during the training for supervisors and

enumerators. The participants were divided into three classes for a more manageable number in each class. Two classes were trained to Approach 1 (List and Enumerate) while the remaining class was trained to employ for Approach 2. For all classes, there were discussions on survey concepts and definitions as laid down in the EN Manual and guidelines in conducting the interview.

A mock interview in each group was conducted after the discussion of the

concepts and operational procedures. This was necessary to familiarize the participants with the concepts and procedures of the survey. An interviewer and a respondent were selected among the participants, while the rest observed and recorded the responses of the respondent on the questions asked in the forms provided. Later on, a field practice to try out the listing activity and the household questionnaire was done in Barangay Parian, a non-sample area. During the field practice, the enumerators had the chance to conduct an actual interview with the household respondents and to test their techniques on introducing themselves and in conducting the interview properly. Experiences during the field practice were shared afterwards.

3.2 Field Operation

Data Collection

As agreed upon, the listing and enumeration of households were assigned to the NGO hired ENs; while interviewing the target CSEC population (using CSEC individual questionnaire) was assigned to experienced NGO personnel.

The enumeration was conducted from October 5 to 19, 2009. Frequent meetings with field supervisors were conducted to ensure smooth implementation of the data gathering. Supervisors from the NGO as well as from NSO Cebu Provincial Office took charge of overseeing the proper conduct of enumeration. Most of the NSO supervisors were assigned in Approach 1 to assist in the conduct of listing and enumeration of households and in identifying the boundaries of the sample areas.

The enumeration was completed despite difficulties encountered during the

two-week period. The regular field operations scenario were ever present such as refusal of households to be interviewed, difficulty in convincing eligible respondents for an interview and inability to locate the sample households, among others.


To further ensure the quality of data collection activity, two debriefing sessions with the ENs were conducted. One was conducted one week after the operation started to assess the ENs’ level of stress and to somehow manage to talk it out. The second debriefing was held after the enumeration period, this time with the presence of NSO Central Office personnel. On this debriefing session, the group discussion focused on the experiences during data collection highlighting what needs to be done to improve the CSEC survey. Field Data Validation

Central Office personnel conducted data validation on the results of the survey for Approach 2. The sample households in selected EAs where the respondent child did not provide any referral (Those with “NO” answer in Q68, Child Referrals) were revisited. In these households, the supervisors verified from the respondents if they knew of other households in the area with members 5 to 25 years old who were engaged in entertainment activities or other services. However, none of them responded otherwise.

EAs with sample households that “cannot be located” (CBL) were also

revisited. The supervisors sought the help of Barangay personnel in locating these sample households. 3.3 Data Processing

Training for the manual processing was conducted by NSO Central Office personnel to prepare the processors in their work. The manual processing of the questionnaires was done at the NSO Cebu provincial office. During editing, the interviewers were called from time to time to assist in the verification of inconsistent entries. A number of cases where the listed household with members 5 to 25 years old had no corresponding household and individual questionnaires were observed. In addition, there were several items that were left blank and were referred back to the enumerators; the enumerators insisted that the child respondent would not provide any answer.

All CSEC forms were keyed-in at the NSO Cebu Provincial Office by hired encoders using Census and Survey Processing System3 (CSPro). The data encoders were trained on the data entry operations before they performed their assignment.

3 A menu-driven software, CSPro is a package used for entering, editing, tabulating and disseminating data for censuses and surveys.


After the data entry in the Provincial Office, further machine processing was done in the NSO Central Office. The processing covered completeness check, range check and consistency check between and among the items in the survey forms and questionnaires. Initial tabulations were made using CSPro. When generated tables showed inconsistencies, identified data items were subjected to further scrutiny and validation. The process of generating consistency tables and data validation was repeated until questionable data items were verified. Most of the items found to be inconsistent were those on occupation reported in the household questionnaire as against those in the individual questionnaire. Furthermore, data on work history were mostly not reported.


HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PILOT SURVEY

4.1 Overview of the Survey Operation The province of Cebu has 53 cities/municipalities located in the Visayas group of islands. The largest metropolitan area outside of the National Capital Region (NCR), Cebu has international ports and airports which facilitate the movement of passengers, shipping, cargoes and airfreight services. The province not only leads the country in the export of furniture, fashion accessories, gifts, toys and house ware items but also serves as gateway of tourism and as an important regional entry point for the Visayas and Mindanao islands.

The pilot area, Cebu City is the oldest Spanish settlement in Asia and the capital of Cebu province. The city consists of 80 barangays with a total household population of 791,697 persons in 177,197 households4 as of August 1, 2007. For 2009, Cebu City has a projected population of 885 thousand of which 398 thousand belongs to age group 5 to 25 years distributed as follows:

Table A Projected Population of Persons 5 to 25 Years Old

by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Source: NSO, 2009 Population Projection Results There were about 242 thousand children 5 to 17 years old, which is 27.4

percent of the total projected population in Cebu City. There was a slight difference between the proportions of males and females aged 5 to 17. Meanwhile, persons 18 to 25 years old comprised 39.1 percent of the total population.

42007 Census of Population Results, http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2010/pr1055tx.html

Age group

Sex Both sexes Male Female

Total 398,460 193,896 204,564

5-17 242,471 121,343 121,128

5-9 96,210 49,297 46,913 10-14 90,751 45,577 45,174 15-17 55,510 26,469 29,041

18-25 155,989 72,553 83,436

CHAPTER 4


During the listing operation for the CSEC pilot survey, the enumerators were able to list a total of 13,674 persons 5 to 25 years old in Approach 1, and 603 persons in that same age category in Approach 25. Table B shows the number of children listed and interviewed for each PSU.

Table B Number of Children Listed/Enumerated as Probable CSEC

and Identified as CSEC* by Type of Approach and by PSU, Cebu City: 2009

* For Approach 2, referrals were not yet included

During the interview with the children, a list of probing questions was asked to

facilitate identifying CSEC. It was anticipated that families of CSEC and the CSEC themselves may deny their activities. The probing questions which asked about the child’s past time activities, place of hang-out, time of coming home and vices guided the interviewer to determine the possibility of a CSEC activity.

Hence after listing the children, they were first classified as probable CSEC

based on the probing questions included in the survey instruments. Children who were considered as probable CSEC included persons 5 to 25 years old who manifested the profile of a CSEC and who qualified to be administered with the individual questionnaire (based on the probing questions).

5The number is 632 children if referred households were included.

Banilad 75 - - Adlaon 2 - -Basak San Nicolas 235 2 - Basak Pardo 71 - -Binaliw 307 - - Bacayan 17 - -Central (Pob.) 190 - - Basak San Nicolas 57 1 1Duljo (Pob.) 874 17 7 Buhisan 2 - -Guadalupe 1,098 3 2 Bulacao 28 - -Hippodromo 446 5 3 Cambinocot 33 - -Inayawan 1,160 2 - Ermita (Pob.) 13 1 1Kalunasan 1,542 - - Guadalupe 9 - -Kamagayan (Pob.) 414 108 10 Labangon 12 - -Kasambagan 460 8 4 Lahug (Pob.) 16 2 -Labangon 424 - - Lorega (Lorega San Miguel) 67 2 2Lahug (Pob.) 523 - - Mabolo 34 - -Mabolo 352 1 1 Mambaling 23 1 -Mambaling 373 - - Punta Princesa (EA 004) 46 4 1Pahina Central (Pob.) 608 - - Punta Princesa (EA 008) 26 - -Pasil 499 24 1 Sawang Calero (Pob.) 20 - -Quiot Pardo 1,181 3 - Sirao 13 - -Sambag II (Pob.) 221 - - Suba Pob. 57 1 1San Roque (Ciudad) 112 - - Tagbao 6 - -T. Padilla 451 5 1 Taptap 6 - -Tinago 623 6 2 Tisa 38 7 6Tisa 1,506 7 7 Zapatera 7 - -

Total 13,674 191 38 Total 603 19 12

Approach 1 Approach 2

PSU Children Listed

Probable CSEC

Identified CSEC PSU Children

ListedProbable

CSECIdentified

CSEC


From these “probable CSEC”, children were screened as “identified CSEC” by asking additional probing questions during the individual interview using SCY Form 2. Hence, children were classified as “identified CSEC” and included in the list if they:

a. admitted that they engaged in CSEC activity; or b. denied being involved in any CSEC activity but were tagged as otherwise by

the interviewer based on their answers to the probing questions in the individual CSEC questionnaire

Table C shows the summary of the number and proportion of PSUs with probable and identified CSEC and the proportion of CSEC to the number of children listed in Cebu City.

Table C Summary Distribution of PSUs and Total Children Listed by Type of Approach, Cebu City: 2009

Number of PSUs

and Listed Children

Type of Approach Approach 1 Approach 2

Number % Number %

Number & Percentage of PSUs 23 100.0 23 100.0 PSUs With Probable CSEC 13 56.5 8 34.8 PSUs With Identified CSEC 10 43.5 6 26.1

Number & Percentage of Listed Children 5 to 25 years old

13,674 603

Probable CSEC 191 1.4 19 3.2 Identified CSEC 38 0.3 12 2.0

There were 13 out of the 23 PSUs in Approach 1 where probable cases of CSEC were listed. From these 13 PSUs, children were identified as CSEC in 10 PSUs. The PSUs under Approach 1 included Kamagayan, known to be a “red light district” of the city. Two other PSUs/EAs known as CSEC pick-up points and also regarded as “red light districts” were also samples in Approach 1. These were Duljo and Pasil which served as hangout of CSEC although far from Kamagayan. Meanwhile in Approach 2, there were eight (8) PSUs where probable CSEC were listed; of which, six (6) PSUs were with identified cases of CSEC. One EA (Tisa) was identified as a hang-out of CSEC. In general, there were more sample PSUs in Approach 1 with CSEC, whether probable or identified, than in Approach 2.

As to the number of children listed as CSEC, Approach 1 appeared to surpass the number in Approach 2. There were as many as 191 probable CSEC listed in Approach 1, out of whom, 38 were identified CSEC. Meanwhile, Approach 2 was able to list 19 probable CSEC; of whom, 12 were identified CSEC.


While Approach 1 listed as many as 191 probable CSEC, its unweighted percentage of 1.4 percent was lower than that in Approach 2 with 3.2 percent. For the identified CSEC, Approach 1 was able to collect data from 38 children while Approach 2 had only 12 identified CSEC. Again, while the number of identified CSEC in Approach 1 was more than three times higher than in Approach 2, the unweighted proportion indicated otherwise; that is, 2.0 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively.

Shown in Table D is the list of PSUs where children were referred by their CSEC peers and were considered as probable CSEC. During the interview of these 9 children, only 6 passed the criteria to be identified as CSEC.

Table D Number of Household and Children Referred by the Respondent

in Approach 2 as Probable CSEC by PSU, Cebu City: 2009

PSU

Number of Households

Referred

Number of Children

Referred* Total 4 9

Labangon 1 4 Lorega 1 2 Sawang Calero (Poblacion) 1** 1 Suba Poblacion 1 2 Note: * Out of the 29 children 5-25 years old from the four households referred by

the respondents, nine were considered to be probable CSEC. Only six passed the criteria as “identified CSEC”.

** Referred households by the respondents were located in Sawang Calero, but the respondent HH that referred it was in Suba, Poblacion.

4.2 Weighted Results

4.2.1 Approach 1 Probable CSEC by Age Group and Sex There were about 4.5 thousand probable CSEC aged 5 to 25 years which was 1.1 percent of the total 5 to 25 years old in Cebu City (Table 1.1). The sex ratio was 71 males for every 100 females. Probable CSEC in age group 18 to 25 years dominated the count with almost 60 percent. The remaining 43 percent were distributed among the other age groups with probable CSEC 5 to 9 years old having the least share of 7.8 percent.


Table 1.1 Number and Percent Distribution of Probable CSEC by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Age Group Sex Both Sexes Male Female

Total Number of Probable CSEC 4,549 1,882 2,667

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 5-9 7.8 7.5 8.0 10-14 12.6 11.7 13.2 15-17 21.9 21.9 21.8 18-25 57.7 58.8 57.0

Demographic Characteristics of Identified CSEC The estimated number of children identified as CSEC was 1,344 individuals. This was 0.3 percent of the total persons 5 to 25 years old in Cebu City. There were more females (938 or 69.8%) compared with males (406 or 30.2 %).

Source: NSO and ILO, 2009 Pilot Survey on CSEC About seven in every ten of the identified CSEC belonged to age group 18 to

25 years. Among the probable CSEC aged 5 to 9 years indicated in Table 1.1, no child passed the criteria to be considered as identified CSEC. Meanwhile, there was one in every five identified CSEC who were 15 to 17 years old; while one in every ten identified CSEC were in age group 10 to 14 years. The identified CSEC who were females tend to be younger compared with their male counterparts. Also, the proportion of the identified females engaged in CSEC activity in the older age group of 18 to 25 years was lower (64.9%) compared to that of the identified male who were engaged in the same activity (87.2 %).

Table 1.2 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Age group Sex

Both Sexes Male Female Total Number of Identified CSEC 1,344 406 938

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 5-9 - - - 10-14 10.1 5.9 12.0 15-17 18.3 6.9 23.2 18-25 71.6 87.2 64.9

Source: NSO and ILO, 2009 Pilot Survey on CSEC


Educational Status of Identified CSEC Two-thirds of the

identified CSEC reached high school; of whom, 75.4 percent of them representing 46.3 percent of the total identified CSEC, were high school undergraduates. Almost 20 percent of the children graduated in high school and approximately 13 percent graduated in elementary. None of them graduated from college; but about one-sixth reported that they were college undergraduates.

All identified CSEC had attended school and can read and write a simple

message. Only 11.3 percent were currently attending school; while the greater proportion (88.7%) were not currently attending school mainly because they cannot afford schooling or they were not willing to attend school (Table 1.3). There were also those who mentioned that they did not attend school because they were pregnant (22.0 % of the female identified CSEC).

Table 1.3 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC Whether or Not They Can Read and Write a Simple Message

Currently Attending School or Not, Reasons for Not Currently Attending School and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009


Can read and write a simple message/ Currently attending school/

Reason for not currently attending school


Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Can read and write a simple message 1,344 406 938 Yes 100.0 100.0 100.0 No - - -

Currently attending school 1,344 406 938 Yes 11.3 - 16.3 No 88.7 100.0 83.7

Reason for not currently attending school (multiple response)

1,191 406 786

Unwillingness 25.4 14.8 30.8 Cannot afford schooling 58.9 87.2 44.3 Due to work 15.9 20.7 12.2 Others 16.9 6.9 22.0 No response 9.4 - 14.2

0.0

4.5

12.9

46.3

19.7

16.6

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

No Grade Completed

Elementary Undergraduate

Elementary Graduate

High School Undergraduate

High School Graduate

College Undergraduate

College Graduate

Percent

Figure 1.1 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Highest Grade Completed, Cebu City: 2009



Marital Status and Family Characteristics of Identified CSEC As to marital status, a large number of the identified CSEC were single

comprising 93 percent of the total. There was not much difference in the marriage status between males and females. About 13 percent reported that they have child/children; of which, 60 percent admitted that they have either one or two children. A large percentage though (40.0%) did not report their number of children.

Table 1.4 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Marital Status

Whether or Not They Have Child(ren), Current Number of Children and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Selected characteristics Sex Both sexes Male Female

Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Marital status 100.0 100.0 100.0 Single 92.9 94.1 92.3 Married 7.1 5.9 7.7

Has a child/children 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 13.4 5.9 16.6 No 84.7 94.1 80.6 No response 1.9 - 2.8

If with child, number of children 100.0 100.0 100.0 One child 35.6 - 41.0 Two children 24.4 100.0 12.8 No response 40.0 - 46.2

Almost 30 percent of the

identified CSEC belonged to a family of five siblings (Figure 1.2). On the other hand, 17.1 percent of the total identified CSEC belonged to a family of six or more children, while one third (33.8%) belonged to a family of three to four siblings.

14.1

5.4

22.2

11.6

29.5

13.3

3.8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

One Two Three Four Five Six More than 6

Perc

ent

Number of siblings

Figure 1.2. Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Number of Siblings, Cebu City: 2009




Out of the 1,344 identified

CSEC aged 5 to 25 years, 47.4 percent were first born or the first children, while 37.2 percent were the second child in their family. Those who were born in the third order comprised four percent and those in the fourth order comprised 9.5 percent.

Past and Present Residence of Identified CSEC

The CSEC pilot survey asked for the past and present residence of the CSEC. The exposure to impoverish condition in a new residence may have affected the child’s decision to enter a CSEC activity. There were more CSEC whose current place of residence was their birthplace (70.4%, Table 1.5). Only three in every 10 CSEC have transferred from their birthplace to their current residence. These transferees reported that studying (41.4%) was their activity in their previous place of residence. The reasons for leaving the previous residence were too varied. These include work opportunities in the place they transferred, looking for work and being or taken by relatives, aside from marriage (7.3%) and family migration (7.0%).

Table 1.5 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Residence Status Activity Done in Previous Residence, Reasons for Leaving Previous Residence

and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009 Residence status/ Activity done in previous

residence/Reasons for leaving Sex

Both sexes Male Female

Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

If current residence is the birthplace 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 70.4 72.4 69.5 No 29.6 27.6 30.5

Activity done in previous residence 398 112 286 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Too young to do anything 18.4 - 25.6 Nothing 11.6 - 16.1 Study 41.4 53.4 36.8 Help in household enterprise 7.1 25.2 - Others 21.5 21.5 21.5

Reasons for leaving previous residence 398 112 286 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Due to family migration 25.4 - 35.3 Due to marriage 7.3 - 10.1 Others (due to work, taken by relatives, etc.) 55.3 100.0 37.8 No response 12.1 16.8

Figure 1.3 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Birth Order, Cebu City: 2009

47.4

37.2

4.09.5

1.9-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

Firstchild

Secondchild

Thirdchild

Fourthchild

Fifthchild

Birth order

Perc

ent




Work History of Identified CSEC

The CSEC pilot survey included questions on work history to provide an account on how the CSEC came into their work, and to describe the activities where they were engaged in. There were CSEC however, who did not consider their activities as work. The proportion of CSEC who reported that they had a job during the past 12 months was 29.4 percent (Table 1.6). However after probing, those children who denied to have worked were found to be working in one way or another. Consequently, they were considered as working in the succeeding questions and their characteristics were included among those who were working.

A large percentage of the identified CSEC did not report the age when they

started working (56.1%). About two in every 10 children reported that they started their CSEC activity between the ages of 18 and 25. Female CSEC started working earlier than the male CSEC.

Figure 1.4 shows that before becoming a CSEC, they were either previously

attending school (11.3%) or working (in an establishment/workshop, 6.7%; in own-family operated farm, 4.4% or as domestic helper, 1.9%). Majority of the identified CSEC did not report their previous activity (61.2%).

Table 1.6 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Job Status during the Past 12 Months, Age When Started Working

and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009 Job status/

Age started working Both sexes Sex

Male Female

Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Job Status 100.0 100.0 100.0 With job 29.4 35.2 26.9 Without job 70.6 64.8 73.1

Age started working 100.0 100.0 100.0 7 - 9 7.2 - 10.3 10 - 14 1.9 - 2.8 15 - 17 15.9 29.6 10.1 18 - 25 18.9 35.2 11.8 No Response 56.1 35.2 65.0



About 21 percent of the CSEC mentioned that the reason for choosing their

present work was because of poverty (Table 1.7). Female CSEC mostly answered poverty as the reason, while male CSEC mostly mentioned low remuneration in the previous job.

Table 1.7 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC

by Reasons for Choosing Present Work and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Reasons for choosing present work Sex

Both sexes Male Female Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Low remuneration in previous job 6.7 22.3 0.0 Poverty 20.8 14.7 23.4 Lured by friends/peers 5.0 6.9 4.2 Others 1.8 5.9 0.0 No response 65.7 50.1 72.4

Source: NSO and ILO, 2009 Survey on CSEC The CSEC pilot survey also examined the work details of a CSEC with

reference to their client and their remuneration. The succeeding table (Table 1.8) shows the percentage distribution of identified CSEC by type and number of clients, and if their clients used condom. The clients were mostly adults as indicated by 31.3 percent of the CSEC respondents while clients younger than 35 years old were also mentioned by about 19 percent of the CSEC. Only female CSEC (6.5%) mentioned that they had foreigner clients. Both male (57.7%) and female (21.1%) CSEC reported that they normally have two clients in a day. More than 30 percent of both male and female CSEC reported that their clients did not use condom while only 6.3 percent mentioned some of them.

Figure 1.4 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Activites before Current Work, Cebu City: 2009

11.36.7 4.4 1.9

14.4

61.2

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Perc

ent

Attended school

Worked in anestablishment/workshopWorked in ownfamily operatedfarm/businessWorked asdomestic helper

Others

No response




A better situation of CSEC in the work place can be noted when only 1.8 percent of them reported that they always had conflict with their clients (Table 1.9). Meanwhile, the other CSEC disclosed that they sometimes (37.4%), or seldom (10.6%) encountered conflicts with their clients. On the other hand, about 10 percent mentioned that they did not have any conflict at all. Further on the lighter side, a greater proportion of CSEC (50.4%) stated that they had not been forced or beaten by the clients/employer for non-cooperation.

Table 1.8 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Type of Clients Number of Clients Met Daily, Whether or Not the Clients Used Condom

and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009 Type of clients/

Number of clients met daily/ Clients use condom


Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Type of clients 100.0 100.0 100.0 Youth (less than 35 years old) 18.6 26.6 15.2 Adults 31.3 51.7 22.4 Foreigners 4.5 - 6.5 Others 3.6 6.9 2.1 No response 41.9 14.8 53.6

Number of clients met daily 100.0 100.0 100.0 One 7.7 14.7 4.7 Two 32.2 57.7 21.1 Three or more 13.0 6.9 15.7 No Response 47.1 20.6 58.5

If clients used condom 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 21.3 35.4 15.3 Some of them 6.3 14.5 2.8 No 32.2 35.3 30.8 No response 40.1 14.7 51.1

Table 1.9 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC on How Often They Had Conflict with Clients or Had Been Forced for Non-cooperation and by Sex

Cebu City: 2009 How often a respondent had conflict with

clients/ Have been forced for non-cooperation Sex

Both sexes Male Female Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

How often a respondent had conflict with clients 100.0 100.0 100.0 Always 1.8 - 2.5 Sometimes 37.4 51.8 31.1 Seldom 10.6 11.8 10.1 Never 10.1 21.7 5.1 No response 40.1 14.7 51.1

Have been forced or beaten for non-cooperation 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 9.5 20.6 4.6 No 50.4 64.7 44.2 Non-response 40.1 14.7 51.1



49.9

27.5

11.2 6.4

28.5

44.8 43.7 44.0 44.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Can leave current job Family knew where they work

Family knew what type of work

Per

cent

Figure 1.5 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Whether or Not They can Leave their Current Work and Whether or Not their Family has Knowledge of their Work, Cebu City: 2009

Yes No No response

More than half (58.4%) of the CSEC would not report the amount they received as payment for engaging in CSEC activities (Table 1.10). Fifteen percent mentioned that their daily remuneration was P1,000 or over while 14 percent reported the lower extreme of P100 to P300 per day. The income earned by working as CSEC was commonly used for their personal needs (30.9%) and given to parents or families (28.6%). One-fifth of the male CSEC reported that they saved the money they earned.

Source: NSO and ILO, 2009 Pilot Survey on CSEC When the CSEC were asked if they can leave their job when they want to, half of them answered “Yes” while only six percent replied in the negative. The others (43.7%) did not want to respond to the query.

On the question whether their family knew where they work, almost the same percentage of the respondents answered “Yes” (27.5%) and “No” (28.5%). Meanwhile, 44.8 percent of the CSEC stated that their family did not have knowledge about the type of work they engaged in and only 11.2 percent said that their family knew their engagement in CSEC activities (Figure 5).

Table 1.10 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Average Pay per Day, Where Income Goes to and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Average pay per day/ Where income goes


Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Average pay per day 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 - 300 14.1 14.8 13.9 301 - 500 4.0 6.9 2.8 501 - 999 8.6 28.3 - 1000 and over 15.0 5.7 18.9 No response 58.4 44.3 64.5

Where income goes (multiple response) Pay rent 8.0 - 11.5 Give to parents/family 28.6 34.2 26.1 Pay some check to employer 1.5 - 2.1 Pay debt (aside from employer) 1.8 5.9 - Personal needs 30.9 43.1 25.8 Savings 9.3 20.7 4.4 No response 60.5 51.2 64.6



Knowledge about Trafficking of Children Nearly one-fourth of the identified CSEC who were asked if they have heard about trafficking of children answered in the affirmative (Figure 6). More CSEC girls engaged in CSEC activities (31.5%) have knowledge about child trafficking than their CSEC boys counterparts (5.9%). Of those who heard about child trafficking, one in every five children reported that the source of information was radio/television (Table 1.11). Source: NSO and ILO, 2009 Pilot Survey on CSEC

A greater proportion of CSEC (50.8%) mentioned that family members were involved in child trafficking, as well as relatives (48.6%), neighbors (41.4%), and friends (27.9%). Half of the CSEC reported that to their knowledge, both men and women were responsible for child trafficking. In this pilot undertaking, none of the CSEC respondent was a victim of child trafficking.

Table 1.11 Number and Percent Distribution of identified CSEC by Source of Knowledge on Trafficking, Persons Involved in Trafficking Persons Responsible for Child Trafficking and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Source of knowledge about trafficking/ Persons involved and responsible about child trafficking

Sexes Both sexes Male Female

Total (Number) 1,344 406 938 Sources of knowledge on trafficking (multiple response) 1,344 406 938

Books 1.5 - 2.2 Newspaper 6.1 - 8.7 Radio/television 19.9 - 28.5 Neighbors 3.8 5.9 3.0 No response 76.2 94.1 68.5

Persons involved in trafficking (multiple response) 319 24 296 Family members 50.8 100.0 46.6 Relatives 48.6 - 52.4 Friends 27.9 - 30.1 Neighbors 41.4 - 44.6 Others - - -

Persons Responsible for child trafficking 319 24 296 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Men 7.4 - 8.0 Women 35.3 100.0 30.1 Both 50.8 - 54.9 Don’t know 6.4 - 6.9

Figure 1.6 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC Who have Heard about Child Trafficking by Sex

Cebu City: 2009

23.8

5.9

31.5

48.4

87.2

31.727.8

6.9

36.8

-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Both Sexes Male Female

Yes NO No response


Phi

Heal

acqucontrhealtwerefever(8.7%the qprobcons

also this srespothe answrespohavinfive thosefive abortdid n

M

Total

Most No Spr Fev Low Ulc Sex Oth No

Perso Doc Nu Per Oth

Ta

Source

ilippine Pilot S

lth Concer

The CSEuired by theracting HIVth problem e also Cr/dizziness/%). Meanwquestion relems, three

sulted the p

Taby Mos

The queasked amo

sensitive quonse rate wrespondent

wer (52.8%onded, abong abortionreported n

e reporting CSEC r

tion once, not provide

ost frequentW

frequently exne/No health rains/accidenver/dizziness/wer back achcer xually transmhers response

on consulted (ctor rse rson in pharmhers

able 1.13 Num

e: NSO and ILO

Survey on CSE

rns and Kn

EC pilot sue respondeV/AIDS. Ab

during theCSEC wh/headache while, a largeferring to e in every erson in ph

able 1.12 Nust Frequently

stion on abong female uestion resuwith more tts not pro

%). Among out one in ten while twnot havingabortion, tw

reported hwhile the an answer

tly experiencWhom they co

xperienced heproblem

nt/injuries at w/headache es

mitted disease

(multiple resp

macy

mber and Per

O, 2009 Pilot Surv

EC, NSO – ILO

nowledge a

rvey also hents as welbout one in

e referenceo reporte(40.6%), u

ge proportiohealth probfive report

harmacy; w

umber and Py Experience

and by S

bortion wasCSEC, but

ulted to lowthan half of

oviding anythose who

en reportedwo in every

one. Ofwo in everyhaving anrest simply(Figure 7).

ced health pronsulted

ealth problems

work

s

ponse)

rcent Distribu

vey on CSEC

LO

about HIV/

had sectionll as awaren every ten period (Ta

ed health ulcer (14.0%on (37.5%) blems. Amted that thehile 4.1 per

Percent Distried Health ProSex, Cebu Ci

s t

w f y o d y f y n y

roblems/

s (multiple res

ution of Identi

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Ye

Per

cent

of Idan

Source: N

/AIDS

ns asking aeness on an CSEC (1able 1.12).

problems%) and sexof the total

mong thoseey consultercent consu

ibution of Ideoblems, Whoity: 2009

Both Sex1,344

sponse) 12.1 2.240.6 8.314.0 8.7 6.437.5

702 61.7 4.113.038.3

ified CSEC by

Ever had an abes No N

10.8

36.5

Figure 1.7 Pedentified Female Cnd Number of Time

Cebu

NSO and ILO, 200

about the hand inciden12.1%) did

On the oths which xually transl CSEC dide who expeed a doctoulted a nurs

entified CSEom They Con

Sex xes Mal

406

5.9-

72.4-

7.614.814.8 6.9

37877.8

- 24.122.2

y Awareness

bortion NNR

52.8

ercent DistributionCSEC Who had an Aes They had an AbCity: 2009

09 Pilot Survey o

3

health probce and risknot report

her hand, twere m

smitted dised not responerienced he

or; 13.0 perse.

EC nsulted

e Femal6 938

9 14.8 3.1

4 26.811.8

6 16.78 6.18 2.89 50.6

8 3248 42.9

9.01 - 2 57.1

on HIV/AIDS

Number of times han abortion

Once N

43.6

n Abortion

bortion

on CSEC

31

lems ks of t any there ainly ease nd to ealth rcent

le

S

had NR

56.4



On the question concerning HIV/AIDS, nearly 60 percent of the CSEC reported that they were aware of the disease. Among those who were aware of HIV/AIDS, two-thirds believed that the disease maybe transmitted through unprotected sex involving penetration, while three in ten mentioned sharing/multiple use of needle as one way of transmission. Only one-third among those aware on HIV/AIDS reported that they knew ways on how to reduce the risk of being infected with the disease. Regular use of condom was pointed out universally as the primary means to reduce the risk.

Awareness on Cybersex Cybersex is a virtual sex encounter on

which two or more persons connected remotely via a computer, send one another sexual explicit messages describing sexual experience. It is also defined as making sweet passionate love with an individual online. Two questions on cybersex were asked among the respondents. About two in every five CSEC mentioned that they were aware of cybersex; the other three in every ten were not; while the remaining ones did not answer the question. Of those who answered “Yes” to cybersex awareness, about two in every five CSEC have engaged in cybersex.

How HIV/AIDS is Transmitted, With or Without Knowledge on How to Reduce the Risk of Contracting HIV/AIDS, Ways on How the Risk Can be Reduced and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Awareness on HIV/AIDS/ How HIV/AIDS is transmitted/ With or without knowledge on how to reduce risk of contracting HIV/AIDS/ Ways on how

the risk can be reduced

Sex

Both sexes

Male

Female

Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Aware of HIV/AIDS 1,344 406 938 Yes 57.4 72.4 50.9 No 9.7 20.7 4.9 No response 32.9 6.9 44.2

How HIV/AIDS is transmitted 771 294 477 Blood transfusion 3.1 - 5.0 Sharing/multiple use of needles 30.7 60.9 11.9 Unprotected sex involving penetration 66.3 38.8 83.0

With or without knowledge on how to reduce risk of contracting HIV/AIDS

771 294 477

Yes 32.7 18.7 41.3 No 67.4 81.3 58.7

Ways on how risk can be reduced 252 55 197 Regular use of condom 100.0 100.0 100.0


37.5 29.5 32.9

39.2

60.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Yes No NR Yes No

Aware of cybersex Engaged in cybersex

Perc

ent

Figure 1.8 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC Who were Aware and

Who Engaged in Cybersex and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009


4.2.2 Approach 2 (Without Referral)

Probable CSEC by Age Group and Sex A total of 13.1 thousand probable CSEC aged 5 to 25 years were estimated

for Approach 2. This number represents 3.3 percent of the total children 5 to 25 years old in Cebu City. More than half of them were females, indicating a sex ratio of 92 males for every 100 females. A higher proportion of female CSEC were at least 15 years old than their counterpart (84.7% compared to 73.1%). Meanwhile, no child between 5 and 9 years old was qualified as probable CSEC.

(Note: The estimates excluded the CSEC who were referred by the respondent CSEC. Discussion of child referrals is under separate heading on page 41.)

Demographic Characteristics of Identified CSEC

From the 13.1 thousand probable CSEC, the estimated number of identified

CSEC reached 7,617 individuals or 1.9 percent of the total children 5 to 25 years old of Cebu City (Table 2.2). There were more identified female CSEC posting a sex ratio of 63 males for every 100 females. Majority of the male CSEC were in the age group 18 to 25 years (58.8 %), while female CSEC were dominated by those children between 15 and 17 years old (55.3%).

Educational Status of Identified CSEC Majority of the CSEC were high school undergraduates. Male CSEC were more educated where one in every five of them had reached college. Meanwhile, more than half of the female CSEC (55.3%) were high school undergraduates, and 16.9 percent of them were able to finish high school (Table 2.2).

Table 2.1 Number and Percent Distribution of Probable CSEC by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Age group Sex Both sexes Male Female

Total (Number) 13,083 6,247 6,836

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 5-9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10-14 25.6 36.9 15.4 15-17 35.6 22.3 47.8 18-25 38.8 40.8 36.9




Table 2.2 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Age Group, Highest Grade Completed and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Age group / Highest grade completed Sex Both sexes Male Female

Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Age group 100.0 100.0 100.0 5-9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10-14 14.5 19.7 11.2 15-17 42.3 21.5 55.3 18-25 43.2 58.8 33.5

Highest grade completed 100.0 100.0 100.0 No grade completed - - - Elementary undergraduate 10.2 - 16.5 Elementary graduate 6.9 - 11.2 High school undergraduate 64.3 78.6 55.3 High school graduate 10.4 - 16.9 College undergraduate 8.2 21.4 - College graduate - - -

Only 34.1 percent of the identified CSEC were currently attending school (Table 2.3). More than half (51.6%) of those who were not attending school mentioned that they cannot provide for their schooling and one-fourth of them (25.9%) cited their unwillingness to attend school as reason. The other reasons mentioned by the respondents were pregnancy and peer influence, among others.

Marital Status and Family Characteristics Both male and female CSEC reported that they were all single (Table 2.4).

When asked if they have a child/children, one-fifth answered, “yes”. Those who answered in the affirmative were all females, and they comprised one-third of the total identified female CSEC. They either had one or two children.

Table 2.3 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC Whether or Not They Were Currently Attending School, Reasons for not Currently Attending School and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Currently attending school/ Reasons for not attending school


Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 3,292

If currently attending school or not 7,617 2,938 3,292 Yes 34.1 41.2 29.6 No 65.9 58.8 70.4

Reasons for not currently attending (multiple response) 5,020 1,728 3,292 Unwillingness 25.9 - 39.5 Cannot afford schooling 51.6 68.2 43.0 Others (got pregnant, influenced by peers) 59.3 63.6 57.0




Past and Present Residence of Identified CSEC A large proportion of the identified CSEC (85.4%) reported that their current

place of residence was their birthplace, while the rest (14.6%) were born in another place and have transferred to their current place of residence. The reasons for leaving previous residence were neither due to family migration nor marriage but due to work.

Table 2.4 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Marital Status Whether or Not They Have Child(ren), Current Number of Children and by Sex

Cebu City: 2009

Selected characteristics Sex Both sexes Male Female

Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Marital status 7,617 2,938 4,679 Single 100.0 100.0 100.0

Has a child/children 7,617 2,938 4,679 Yes 20.6 - 33.5 No 79.4 100.0 66.5

If with child, number of children 1,566 - 1,566 Total 100.0 100.0 One child 50.6 - 50.6 Two children 49.4 - 49.4

Table 2.5 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Residence Status, Reasons for Leaving Previous Residence and by Sex

Cebu City: 2009

Residence status / Reasons for leaving previous residence

Sex Both Sexes Male Female

Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

If current residence is the birthplace 7,617 2,938 4,679 Yes 85.4 81.3 88.0 No 14.6 18.7 12.0

Reasons for leaving previous residence 1,112 550 561 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Due to family migration/marriage - - - Others (due to work) 100.0 100.0 100.0



The identified CSEC (including self) mostly belonged to large families, with half of them having six or more siblings. As to birth order in the family, the identified CSEC were either the first or second child in the family, more likely an indication of impoverishes family life where the elder siblings tend to work to support their family.

Work History

Three-fourths of the identified CSEC did not have job. The proportion of females (83.1%) having no job was higher than that of males (62.5%) Again, as in Approach 1, children initially denied their engagement in any CSEC activity, but further probing classified them otherwise.

Table 2.6 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Job Status during the Past 12 Months, Age When Started Working

and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009 Job status/

Age started working Sex

Both sexes Male Female Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Job status 100.0 100.0 100.0 With job 24.8 37.5 16.9 Without Job 75.2 62.5 83.1

Age started working 100.0 100.0 100.0 7 - 9 - - - 10 - 14 22.8 41.2 11.2 15 - 17 16.6 21.2 13.7 18 - 25 27.8 18.7 33.5 No Response 32.8 18.7 41.6

Source: NSO and ILO, 2009 Pilot Survey on CSEC -

15.6

7.4

15.4

8.3

21.7

31.6 33.4 33.4

10.4

15.7

7.2

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

One Two Three Four Five Six More than 6

First child Second child

Third child Fourth child

Sixth child

Perc

ent

Figure 2.1 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Number of Siblings and by Birth Order, Cebu City: 2009

Number of siblings Birth Order





There were no identified CSEC children who started in this work at the age of

7 to 9 years old. There was also a great percentage of no response (Table 2.6). Two in every five male CSEC started working at the age of 11 to 14 years old. Meanwhile, a large proportion of the female CSEC were between ages 18 to 25 years old when they first engaged in CSEC activity (27.8%).

About two in every five CSEC chose their present work because of poverty

(Table 2.7). This holds true for male CSEC where four in every five male CSEC mentioned poverty as the reason why they ended up in their present job. On the contrary, results showed that females were more likely to engage in CSEC activity due to peer influence (16.5%) and other reasons (16.9%).

On the questions about clients, male CSEC who responded reported that they

had an average of two clients per day while female CSEC mentioned only one client. A greater proportion (31.0%) mentioned that their clients did not use condoms with male CSEC being more open than their counterparts in admitting this matter (62.5% against 11.2%). Female CSEC on the other hand, opted to shy away from this question with 58.6 percent of them not responding to the question.


Table 2.7 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Reasons for Choosing Present Work and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Reasons for choosing present work Sex

Both Sexes Male Female Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Low remuneration in previous job - - - Poverty 38.2 81.3 11.2 Lured by friends/peers 10.2 - 16.5 Others 10.4 - 16.9 No response 41.2 18.7 55.3

Table 2.8 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Number of Clients Met Daily, Whether or Not Clients Used Condom

and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009 Number of clients met daily/

If clients used condom Sex

Both Sexes Male Female Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Number of clients met daily 100.0 100.0 100.0 One 17.1 - 27.8 Two 31.3 81.3 - Three or more - - - No response 51.6 18.7 72.2 If clients used condom 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 8.4 - 13.7 Some of them 17.4 18.7 16.5 No 31.0 62.5 11.2 No response 43.2 18.7 58.6


The CSEC respondents were

asked this question, “On the average, how much do you get paid per day?” Three in every ten CSEC reported that the average pay they received per day was within the range of P100 to P300. Male CSEC have lower average pay per day with more than 60 percent of them reporting an average pay between P100 and P300. Majority of female CSEC did not report their average pay. Of those who reported, one-sixth of them declared an amount within the range of P301 to 500 (Figure 2.2)

Knowledge about Trafficking of Children

Nearly half (48.5%) of the total identified CSEC had not heard about child

trafficking. On the other hand, a quarter (25.9%) of them had knowledge about trafficking while the rest (25.6%) did not provide response. Those who knew child trafficking reported to have gained information through friends (72.1%), newspaper or radio/television (59.9% each), and pamphlets/posters (27.9%). None of the CSEC reported that they were victims of child trafficking.

Table 2.9 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC

Who Have Heard About Child Trafficking, Sources of Knowledge on Trafficking and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Heard about Child Trafficking/ Source of Knowledge on Trafficking


Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Heard about child trafficking 7,617 2,938 4,679 Yes 25.9 40.2 16.9 No 48.5 41.0 53.2 No response 25.6 18.7 29.9

Sources of knowledge on trafficking (multiple response) 1,974 1,182 792 Newspaper 59.9 100.0 100.0 Radio/Television 59.9 100.0 - Friends 72.1 53.5 100.0 Pamphlets/posters 27.9 46.5 -


-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100 - 300 301 - 500 No response

Perc

ent

Average pay per day (In pesos)

Figure 2.2 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Average Pay per Day

and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009




Health Concerns and Knowledge About HIV/AIDS When asked about the health problems most frequently experienced, one in

every four (24.6%) CSEC reported fever/dizziness/headache; the proportion is about ten percent higher in females (28.3%) compared to males (18.7%). There were more males than females (62.5% compared to 24.9%) who reported that they did not have any health problem.

Table 2.10 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Health Problems Experienced and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009

Health problem experienced Sex

Both Sexes Male Female

Total (Number) multiple response 7,617 2,938 4,679

None/No health problem 39.4 62.5 24.9 Fever/dizziness/headache 24.6 18.7 28.3 Lower back aches 7.2 18.7 - Others 10.4 - 16.9 No response 25.6 18.7 29.9

On their knowledge on HIV/AIDS, four in every nine CSEC mentioned that they were aware of the disease. Those who were aware reported that HIV/Aids can be transmitted through unprotected sex involving penetration (62.5%), through sharing/multiple use of needles (18.9%), and through blood transfusion (18.5%). More than 60 percent of those aware mentioned that they knew how to reduce the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Table 2.11 Number and Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Awareness on HIV/AIDS on How HIV/Aids is Transmitted, on How to Reduce the Risk of Contracting HIV/AIDS

and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009 Awareness of HIV/AIDS/How HIV/AIDS transmitted/ Know how to reduce the risk contracting HIV/AIDS


Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Awareness of HIV / AIDS 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 44.4 40.1 47.1 No 30.0 41.2 23.0 No response 25.6 18.7 29.9

How HIV/AIDS is transmitted 3,384 1,178 2,206 Unprotected sex involving penetration 62.5 46.7 71.0 Sharing / multiple used of needles 18.9 - 29.0 Blood transfusion 18.5 53.3 -

Know how to reduce risk of contracting HIV/AIDS 3,384 1,178 2,206 Yes 60.9 53.3 64.9 No 39.1 46.7 35.1

Ways on how risk ca be reduced 2,059 627 1,432 Regular use of condom 61.5 100.0 44.7 Avoiding sex involving penetration 38.5 - 55.3




Awareness on Cybersex Nearly 59 percent of the total CSEC reported that they were aware of cybersex (Figure 2.3). Only 15.6 percent answered in the negative, but a larger of 25.6 percent proportion was noted to be not responding. The proportion of male CSEC who were aware of cybersex (81.3%) was higher compared to that among female CSEC (44.7%). None of the CSEC had engaged in cybersex.

58.8

15.6 25.6

81.3

-

18.7

100.0

44.7

25.4 29.9

-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Yes No NR Yes No

Aware about Cybersex Engaged in cybersex

Perc

ent

Figure 2.3 Percent Distribution of Identified CSEC by Awareness on Cybersex and Whether or Not They Engaged

in Cybersex by Sex, Cebu City: 2009




4.2.3 Approach 2 (With Referral)

For the purpose of presenting the results for Approach 2 with referrals, only the unweighted estimates were included in this report. The estimation procedure for Approach 2 which included the referred households is still under evaluation.

Only three households or 0.8 percent of the 354 sample households had referrals. From these three referred households, only one referred another household with probable CSEC to be interviewed. In totality, there were four households referred by the respondent households who were originally listed. From these referred households 29 children who were 5 to 25 years old were listed and interviewed.

Table 2.12 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old

With or Without Referral by Age Group, Cebu City: 2009

Age Group With referrals Without referral

Total Percent Total Percent Total 632 100.0 603 100.0

5 ‐ 9 160 25.3 156 25.9 10 ‐ 14 154 24.4 148 24.5 15 ‐ 17 89 14.1 84 13.9 18 ‐ 25 229 36.2 215 35.7

Probable CSEC Total 28 100.0 19 100.0 5 ‐ 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ 14 5 17.9 5 26.3 15 ‐ 17 12 42.9 7 36.8 18 ‐ 25 11 39.3 7 36.8

Identified CSEC Total 18 100.0 12 100.0 5 ‐ 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ 14 2 11.1 2 16.7 15 ‐ 17 8 44.4 5 41.7 18 ‐ 25 8 44.4 5 41.7

Source: NSO-ILO, 2009 Pilot Survey on CSEC

Among the children listed from the referred households, only nine passed the

criteria as probable CSEC. These nine belonged to the older group of 15 to 17 years old (5 persons) and 18 to 25 years old (4 persons). Further probing indicated that there were only six children identified as CSEC.


The conduct of the pilot survey on CSEC was a different challenge to the Philippine NSO. Getting information from children engaged in CSEC activities was not that easy since these activities generally operate away from the public view and in hidden form. To identify a CSEC at the household level while at their period of inactivity and in home dresses would require a lot of observation and ample time to connect. While there was difficulty in particular at the data collection part of the pilot survey, the resulting data provided great insight into unique experiences of CSEC.

During the conduct of the CSEC pilot survey, several concerns were identified

as indicated in the following discussions. The lessons learned from the experiences during the pilot survey will provide guidance to improve the next conduct of CSEC surveys.

5.1 Interviewing the CSEC Households and the CSEC: Cases of Refusal, Denial and Indifference

Being a CSEC is something not to brag about; families of CSEC and the CSEC themselves denied their activities. The primary target population was indeed elusive as attested by a number of denials among respondents during the interview in a household setting.

It must be recalled that the participation of child respondents should be voluntary, such that enumerators should be sensitive to the children’s ways of behaving and thinking. During the data enumeration, it was common experience among enumerators to find difficulty in building rapport and gaining trust and confidence with the respondent on the first meeting. Coupled with sensitive questions, getting into conversation and pushing through with the interview required tact and discretion.

After listing the household members and finding out the presence of a child

member 5 to 25 years old, probing questions were administered to the child. Asking younger children, those aged 10 years and below required longer interview time as there were more reluctance on their part; some would not even speak up. Most of their responses were dependent on the parents’ answer, who in most cases would not leave their children alone to be interviewed. In case the parent is around during interview, it hindered the child from discussing more, thus limiting the child’s sharing

CHAPTER 5

LESSONS LEARNED


of information. The youngest respondent interviewed for the individual questionnaire was 13 years old but the mother was listening.

If it was not the parent whose presence affected the child’s interview, it was

the “mamasan”6. During the interview using individual questionnaire, the CSEC respondent stopped answering whenever the “mamasan” goes near. An example is a household in Kamagayan (said to be a casa) with five individuals who were potential CSEC. Only one was able to answer the first section of the questionnaire; the interview of the second person was stopped in the middle; while the third and fourth person no longer replied. The fifth person, who was not around at that time and was supposed to be scheduled for a callback, was not visited anymore. The uncle of one respondent who happened to be around during the interview got mad, causing fear to the assigned interviewer.

The children were reluctant to answer question and denied their involvement in CSEC activities even after being identified as CSEC on the results of the probing questions. Respondents refused to admit their kind of work, making it difficult to proceed to the other sections of the questionnaire. Several items in the questionnaire did not have entries as indicated by cases of “Not Reported” (Refer to Table E in page 45).

Among households located in known “red light areas”, CSEC activities were advertised and drug-related activities were rampant. Despite the openness of CSEC transaction, there were children who denied their engagement in such activities. For instance, children who were in Kamagayan a known “red-light district”, refused to admit their real activities.

The length of enumeration period somehow added to the predicament of

good data collection. Given the two-week enumeration period, there was not enough time for callback and further visit to the household to earn the trust of the respondent child. The CSEC survey should be planned in such a way that there are series of activities or meetings to be participated in by the respondent children and interviewers to build trust and confidence between them that could lead to disclosures. 5.2 CSEC Questionnaires: Format, Content and Flow of Questions

One objective of the CSEC pilot survey is to test the questionnaires in terms of clarity, logical sequence of the questions and adequacy of the response categories. The conduct of the pilot survey provided ample opportunity to test the design of the questionnaire and later improved it to ensure its usefulness. For this pilot survey, three major survey instruments were used to capture the characteristics of the CSEC. 6 “Mamasan” (from the word “Mama” or mother) is a woman who heads group of CSEC in a casa or oversee the commercial-sex business.


The following are the comments/findings during the use of said survey

instruments:

a. Form for Listing of Households (LOH Form 1)

Limited space for write-in entries such as name of household head, address of the household and the remarks column resulting in unclear entries. Descriptions of the housing units were written in abbreviations in the “Remarks” portion.

b. CSEC Household Questionnaire (SCY Form 1)

This questionnaire asks for detailed description of occupation and industry

engaged in by the household members. The column-spaces provided for these two variables were too tight to appropriately write down the description of the work and industry. Further, the lists of choices for occupations and industry as indicated in the questionnaire included only those found in establishments. Detailed descriptions of occupations were written down in the remarks portion at the back of the questionnaire.

c. CSEC Individual Questionnaire (SCY Form 2)

Transition was difficult from Questions on Demographic Characteristics (Section A) to Questions on Work History (Section B). Before proceeding to questions on work history, the respondents should be prepared on the questions to be asked. The enumerators must be completely sure that the respondent is a CSEC. It must be noted that respondents who were already classified as CSEC did not consider their CSEC activities as “work”. So when they were asked the question about “work” (starting in question 20), they mentioned that they do not have one. For them, “work” referred to legal and formal activities from which individuals receive regular payments thru payroll. Unless the respondent admitted the real activity, the interview cannot go through the section that asks for Work History.

Sensitive questions limit the flow of interview. There were comments that the questions were too personal, and with these, the respondent hesitated to provide more information as required in the questionnaire. Several questions focusing on the CSEC activities were avoided by the respondents and hence not answered. These included questions on abortion, use of condom, and conflict with clients, among others. Table E on page 41 shows the list of items in the individual questionnaire which did not draw out good responses; a great percentage were non-response.


d. Probing questions to qualify the child as CSEC

Two sets of probing questions were appended to the original CSEC questionnaires (SCY Form 1 and SCY form 2) to aid in determining if the child qualified to be a CSEC. While the probing questions provided information on the possible CSEC-related activities, it would have been more functional if the probing questions were made part of the main questionnaire. Even for the probing questions, there were several item non-responses so that there were instances when the enumerator relied on personal perception in determining if the respondent is a CSEC. The enumerator’s observation and interpretation of the child’s answers were major considerations in determining if the child was qualified as CSEC.

Table E Comparative Percentage of Not Reported Cases by Approach

Questions Approach

1 2 % NR

unweighted % NR

unweighted Q20. Age started working - 33.3 Q21. Activity before current work 55.3 50.0 Q22. Reason for choosing present work 57.9 41.7 Q23. Method of Recruitment 47.4 41.7 Q24. Persons who helped get job 42.1 - Q25. Number of Hours 55.3 41.7 Q26. Number of days work in a week 50.0 41.7 Q27. Type of client 39.5 33.3 Q28. Number of Clients 47.4 50.0 Q29. If clients use condom 36.8 41.7 Q30. Number of times conflict with client 36.8 41.7 Q31. Forced or beaten for non-cooperation 36.8 41.7 Q32. Receive remuneration 36.8 41.7 Q33. Average pay per day 47.4 50.0 Q34. Source of remuneration 50.0 50.0 Q35. Basis of Payment - 41.7 Q36. Get extra money from client 47.4 50.0 Q37. What is done with income earned 50.0 50.0 Q38. Other jobs 84.2 100.0 Q39. Possibility to leave present job 42.1 41.7 Q40 Family's knowledge of place of work 42.1 41.7 Q41 Family's knowledge of type of work 42.1 41.7 Q42. Heard about children trafficking 31.6 25.0 Q43. Sources of knowledge in trafficking 68.4 - Q44. Knowledge of gender of trafficked child 68.4 - Q56. Most frequently experienced health problem 36.8 25.0 Q58. Stopped working due to sickness 55.3 75.0 Q59. Ever had abortion (Female only) 47.4 85.7 Q60. Number of times abortion 50.0 NA Q61. Aware of aids 34.2 25.0 Q65. Aware about cybersex 34.2 25.0


5.3 Comparing the Two Data Collection Strategies As stated in the third objective, the CSEC pilot survey aimed to identify

problems that would likely be encountered during the data collection using two strategies: The first approach was to list and enumerate, while the second approach was through referral.

During the enumeration phase, the Approach 2 Teams finished ahead of the

Approach 1 Teams. This scenario was expected since in Approach 2, the sample households to be covered in the sample EAs that ranged from two to 37 sample households were already selected and enumerators have to locate only for the households. Approach 1 on the other hand, required the entire listing of the sample area, then interviewing the children who may be possible CSEC. The Approach 1 Teams had more exposure to the various types of households. Since they were going from house to house, the Approach 1 Teams encountered CSEC-related scenes in households that somehow terrified them, including “pot sessions” and CSEC-intimate actions. These teams also had to hurdle problems on boundary set-up of EAs. There were instances when the households not belonging to the sample EAs were listed.

Meanwhile, Approach 2 Teams encountered difficulty in locating households

listed as sample households. Coordination with barangay officials was necessary in locating these households.

5.4 The NGO Partner as Interviewer

For this CSEC pilot survey, an NGO was contracted by the NSO to handle the data collection activity. This was an initial attempt of the Philippine NSO to make the data collection arrangement with an NGO since CSEC is a specialized concern and would need the expertise of the NGO in conducting the children’s interview. Bidlisiw, Inc. was the NGO contracted for this pilot survey.

In areas where Bidlisiw Foundation, Inc. is already known and operating, openness was more evident. More disclosures were documented since rapport and trust with the households had been developed in the past through implementation of various programs and services in the barangay. Such cases were reported in the EAs of Ermita, Lorega, Duljo, Pasil, Punta Princesa, Labangon, Sawang Calero, San Maguel, Inayawan and San Nicolas. The familiarity and knowledge of Bidlisiw enumerators on the local culture and Cebuano dialect helped them saturate the sample areas.

In other cases however, the NGO enumerators were not welcomed. Some

respondents initially thought that they were asking donations for civic and religious activities. Some households did not want to be interviewed by an NGO enumerator and mentioned that they would allow conduct of surveys if the undertaking was from NSO.


RECOMMENDATIONS

The conduct of the CSEC Pilot Survey has provided valuable inputs in improving future surveys of this type. This has also posed new challenges on how to collect data on UWFCL. The following are recommended in preparing for a national CSEC survey:

1. Need for interviewers who are knowledgeable on CSEC and listing activities.

Experienced NSO interviewers who are more familiar with the listing concept should collect the information in the household questionnaire; while an experienced NGO data collector should ask the information using individual questionnaire. Female interviewer should be the one interviewing female respondents. The level of openness is more pronounced being with the same sex especially on sensitive topics.

2. Prime more questions aside from the probing questions in the individual

questionnaire before proceeding to ask the CSEC work. The probing question should be integrated in the questionnaire. Replace the term “work” with a phrase that would refer to CSEC. Provide enough spaces for the listing sheets (LOH Form 1) and column-spaces in the household questionnaire.

3. Simplify the terms or use the CSEC lingo. Thorough knowledge of the common language used by the CSEC is helpful in establishing rapport with the respondent. Items in the questionnaires should likewise be in layman’s term such as trafficking and cybersex.

4. The household questionnaire can be administered at home level but for the

individual questionnaire, extra caution should be observed especially when there are persons around such as parents and “mamasans”.

5. Interview the child using the probing questions in their house and then set an

interview time with him/her in a designated place and time- a place where they hang-out, such as in the “park”. This is to free the respondent from eavesdroppers and to create a space for opening-up. Identified-potential CSEC should be scheduled first for series of activities to build trust and confidence which could lead to disclosures.

CHAPTER 6


6. Extend enumeration period for a month and the criteria for inclusion of a household member should be more than 30 days, preferably 6 months. This is to provide ample time to ascertain other family members who were excluded from the interview. It may be possible that those who were excluded in the interview because they were outside the household for a month could be victims of human trafficking.

7. The EN Manual should be developed comprehensively prior to the conduct of

training with NGO or people with background on the issue. 8. Careful evaluation must be made when doing the analysis of the CSEC results.

With so many questions having high non-response, the overall picture of the CSEC characteristics was not captured completely in the survey.


APPENDIX A

Detailed Tables (Approach 1 and Approach 2)


Appendix A

Total (Number) 398,458 193,896 204,562

Age group 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 24.1 25.4 22.9 10 - 14 22.8 23.5 22.1 15 - 17 13.9 13.7 14.2 18 - 25 39.1 37.4 40.8

Highest grade completed 100.0 100.0 100.0 No grade completed 10.9 11.9 10.0 Elementary undergraduate 29.7 31.9 27.7 Elementary graduate 4.1 4.2 4.0 High school undergraduate 22.1 22.7 21.6 High school graduate 11.9 10.0 13.7 College undergraduate 14.8 14.2 15.4 College graduate 6.4 5.1 7.6

Marital (civil) status 100.0 100.0 100.0 Single 90.7 93.3 88.3 Married 8.9 6.5 11.1 Widowed 0.1 0.1 0.2 Divorced/separated 0.1 * 0.2 Unknown 0.1 0.1 0.1 Annulled * * *

Have a job or business during the past twelve months 100.0 100.0 100.0 With job 16.9 17.6 16.1 Without job 83.1 82.3 83.7 No response 0.1 * 0.1

Note: * - Less than 500Source: NSO and ILO, 2009 Pilot Survey on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children

Selected demographic characteristics

by Selected Demographic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009Table A1.1 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old



Appendix A continued…

Total (Number) 398,458 193,896 204,562

Children 5 to 25 years old 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 24.1 25.4 22.9 10 - 14 22.8 23.5 22.1 15 - 17 13.9 13.7 14.2 18 - 25 39.1 37.4 40.8

Probable CSEC 4,549 1,882 2,667 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 7.8 7.5 8.0 10 - 14 12.6 11.7 13.2 15 - 17 21.9 21.9 21.8 18 - 25 57.7 58.8 57.0

Identified CSEC 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 - - -10 - 14 10.1 5.9 12.0 15 - 17 18.3 6.9 23.2 18 - 25 71.6 87.2 64.9

Source: NSO and ILO, 2009 Pilot Survey on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children

Age group

by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009Table A1.2 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old




Total (Number) 4,549 1,882 2,667

Age group 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 7.8 7.5 8.0 10 - 14 12.6 11.7 13.2 15 - 17 21.9 21.9 21.8 18 - 25 57.7 58.8 57.0


Have a job or business during the past twelve months 100.0 100.0 100.0 With job 22.2 21.1 23.0 Without job 77.8 78.9 77.0



by Selected Demographic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009Table A1.3 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Probable CSEC




Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Age group 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 - - -10 - 14 10.1 5.9 12.0 15 - 17 18.3 6.9 23.2 18 - 25 71.6 87.2 64.9

Marital status 100.0 100.0 100.0 Single 92.9 94.1 92.3 Married 7.1 5.9 7.7

Highest grade completed 100.0 100.0 100.0 No grade completed - - -Elementary undergraduate 4.4 14.7 -Elementary graduate 15.1 12.9 16.0 High school undergraduate 46.3 50.1 44.6 High school graduate 17.6 7.6 21.9 College undergraduate 16.6 14.7 17.4 College graduate - - -



FemaleSelected demographic characteristics

Table A1.4 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Demographic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City:2009

Both sexes Male



Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Q1. Current residenceTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 70.4 72.4 69.5 No 29.6 27.6 30.5

Q3. Length of stay 398 112 286 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Less than 10 years 81.6 100.0 74.4 Ten years or more 18.4 - 25.6

Q5. Activity done in previous residence 398 112 286 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Too young to do anything 18.4 - 25.6 Nothing 11.6 - 16.1 Study 41.4 53.4 36.8 Help in household enterprise 7.1 25.2 -Others 21.5 21.5 21.5

Q6. Reason for leaving previous residence 398 112 286 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Due to family migration 25.4 - 35.3 Due to marriage 7.3 - 10.1 Others 55.3 100.0 37.8 No response 12.1 - 16.8

Q7. Religion 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Roman Catholic 96.5 100.0 95.1 Others 1.5 - 2.2 Do not know 1.9 - 2.8

Q8. Number of siblings including self 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 One 14.1 14.7 13.9 Two 5.4 - 7.8 Three 22.2 37.1 15.8 Four 11.6 - 16.6 Five 29.5 29.5 29.6 Six 13.3 18.7 10.9 More than 6 3.8 - 5.4

Continued

Selected socio-economic characteristics

Table A1.5 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Socio-economic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009




Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Q9. Birth orderTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 First child 47.4 51.8 45.6 Second child 37.2 35.4 38.0 Third child 4.0 - 5.7 Fourth child 9.5 12.8 8.1 Fifth child 1.9 - 2.7

Q10. Can read and write a simple sentenceTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 100.0 100.0 100.0 No - - -

Q11. Have ever attended schoolTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 100.0 100.0 100.0 No - - -

Q12. Currently attending schoolTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 11.3 - 16.3 No 88.7 100.0 83.7

Q13. Reason for not currently attending school (multiple responses) 1,191 406 786 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Unwillingness 25.4 14.8 30.8 Cannot afford schooling 58.9 87.2 44.3 Due to work 15.1 20.7 12.2 Others 16.9 6.9 22.0 No response 9.4 - 14.2

Q17. Has a child / children 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 13.4 5.9 16.6 No 84.7 94.1 80.6 No response 1.9 - 2.8

Continued


Table A1.5 - Continued




Q18. Number of children currently have 180 24 156 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

One child 35.6 - 41.0 Two children 25.0 100.0 12.8 No response 40.0 - 46.2

Q19. Person taking care of child/children while working 180 24 156 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Parents 11.1 - 12.8 Partner/spouse 23.9 - 27.6 Others 25.0 100.0 12.8 No response 40.0 - 46.2

Q20. Age when respondent started working 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 7 - 9 8.1 - 12.3 10 - 14 2.2 - 3.3 15 - 17 18.0 29.6 12.1 18 - 25 21.3 35.2 14.1 No response 63.3 35.2 77.6

Q21. Activity before current work 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Attended school 11.3 - 16.1 Worked in an establishment/workshop 6.7 22.3 -Worked in own family operated farm/business 4.4 14.7 -Worked as domestic helper 1.9 - 2.8 Others 14.4 27.6 8.7 No response 61.2 35.3 72.4

Q22. Reason for choosing present work 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Low remuneration in previous job 6.7 22.3 -Poverty 20.8 14.7 23.4 Lured by friends/peers 5.0 6.9 4.2 Others 1.8 5.9 -No response 65.7 50.1 72.4



Table A1.5 - Concluded




Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Q23. Method of recruitmentTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Parents/other relatives forced me to work 6.4 14.7 2.8 Self decided to work here 40.8 58.7 33.1 Others 8.4 20.7 3.1 No response 44.4 5.9 61.1

Q24. Person who helped the respondent get his present jobTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Myself no one 38.1 51.8 32.2 Parents/Family members 8.5 21.7 2.8 Lover 2.1 - 3.0 Friends 8.4 20.7 3.1 Others 1.7 - 2.5 No response 41.2 5.9 56.5

Q25. Number of hoursTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 - 2 hours 18.3 29.5 13.4 3 - 4 hours - - -5 - 8 hours 26.8 43.0 19.8 9 - 12 hours 2.1 6.9 - No response 52.8 20.6 66.8

Q26. Number of days a respondent work in a weekTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 One day 11.5 14.7 10.1 Two days 6.4 6.9 6.1 Three days 5.4 5.9 5.1 Four days 11.2 37.1 -Five days 4.4 14.7 -Six days 1.9 - 2.8 Seven days 10.8 - 15.5 No response 48.4 20.6 60.4

Q27. Type of clientsTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Youth (less than 35 years old) 18.6 26.6 15.2 Adults 31.3 51.7 22.4 Foreigners 4.5 - 6.5 Others 3.6 6.9 2.1 No response 41.9 14.8 53.6

Continued

Selected work characteristics

by Selected Work Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009Table A1.6 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC




Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Q28. Number of clients respondent met dailyTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 One 7.7 14.7 4.7 Two 32.2 57.7 21.1 Three or more 13.0 6.9 15.7 No response 47.1 20.6 58.5

Q29. Clients use condomTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 21.3 35.4 15.3 Some of them 6.3 14.5 2.8 No 32.2 35.3 30.8 No response 40.1 14.7 51.1

Q30. How often a respondent had a conflict with clientsTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Always 1.8 - 2.5 Sometimes 37.4 51.8 31.1 Seldom 10.6 11.8 10.1 Never 10.1 21.7 5.1 No response 40.1 14.7 51.1

Q31. Have been forced or beaten for non-cooperationTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 9.5 20.6 4.6 No 50.4 64.7 44.2 No response 40.1 14.7 51.1

Q32. Receive renumerationTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 41.6 55.8 35.4 No 18.3 29.5 13.4 No response 40.1 14.7 51.1

Q33. Average pay per dayTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 - 300 14.1 14.8 13.9 301 - 500 4.0 6.9 2.8 501 - 1000 8.6 28.3 -1000 and over 15.0 5.7 18.9 No response 58.4 44.3 64.5

Continued






Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Q34. Source of renumerationTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Employer 7.7 14.7 4.7 Customer/client 25.9 41.1 19.4 Both 6.2 - 8.8 No response 60.2 44.2 67.1

Q35. Basis of paymentTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Monthly 9.2 20.7 4.3 Every two weeks 3.7 - 5.3 Per day/per night 11.5 14.8 10.1 Per activity 15.0 20.4 12.6 Others 5.7 - 8.2 No response 54.8 44.1 59.5

Q36. Respondent gets extra money from clientsTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 22.9 35.2 17.5 No 18.7 20.6 17.9 No response 58.4 44.2 64.6

Q37. What is done with the income earned (multiple response)Pay rent 8.0 - 11.5 Give to parents/family 28.6 34.2 26.1 Pay some check to employer 1.5 - 2.1 Pay debts (aside from employer) 1.8 5.9 -Personal needs 30.9 43.1 25.8 Savings 9.3 20.7 4.4 No response 60.5 51.2 64.6

Continued






Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Q38. Other jobsTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Receptionist 2.2 - 3.1 Salesperson 1.8 5.9 -Waitress 32.5 100.0 -Entertainer 5.6 13.5 2.2 Others 4.4 14.7 -No response 86.0 65.9 94.7

Q39. Possiblity that the respondent can leave current jobTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 49.9 70.7 70.7 No 6.4 7.6 7.6 No response 43.7 21.7 21.7

Q40. Family's knowledge of respondent's place of workTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 27.5 48.8 18.3 No 28.5 29.6 28.0 No response 44.0 21.7 53.6

Q41. Family's knowledge of respondent's type of workTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 11.2 20.7 7.1 No 44.8 57.7 39.2 No response 44.0 21.7 53.7







Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Q42. Heard about children traffickingTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 23.8 5.9 31.5 No 48.4 87.2 31.7 No response 27.8 6.9 36.8

Q43. Sources of knowledge on trafficking (multiple response) 319 24 296 TotalBooks 6.3 - 6.8 Newspaper 25.7 - 27.7 Radio/Television 83.7 - 90.2 Neighbors 16.3 100.0 9.5

Q44. Knowledge of the trafficked child's gender 319 24 296 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Girls only 74.6 100.0 72.3 Boys only - - -Both boys and girls 25.7 - 27.7

Q45. Involved in trafficking (multiple response) 319 24 296 Family members 50.8 100.0 46.6 Relatives 48.6 - 52.4 Friends 27.9 - 30.1 Neighbors 41.4 - 44.6 Others - - -

Q46. Responsible for child trafficking 319 24 296 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Men 7.5 - 8.1 Women 35.4 100.0 30.1 Both 50.8 - 54.7 Don't know 6.3 - 6.8

Q47. Victim of child trafficking 319 24 296 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes - - -No 100.0 100.0 100.0


Knowledge and attitude about trafficking

Table A1.7 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSECby Knowledge and Attitude About Trafficking and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009




Total (Number) 1,344 406 938

Q56. Most frequently experienced health problem (multiple response)None/No health problem 12.1 5.9 14.8 Sprains accidentsinjuries at work 2.2 - 3.1 Fever/dizziness/headache 40.6 72.4 26.8 Lower back aches 8.3 - 11.8 Ulcer 14.0 7.6 16.7 Sexually transmitted diseases 8.7 14.8 6.1 Others 6.4 14.8 2.8 No response 37.5 6.9 50.6

Q57. Person consulted (mutiple response) 702 378 324 Doctor 61.7 77.8 42.9 Nurse 4.1 - 9.0 Person in pharmacy 13.0 24.1 -Others 38.3 22.2 57.1

Q58. Have stopped working for the last one year due to sickness 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 22.1 58.9 6.1 No 28.4 28.3 28.4 NO response 49.6 12.8 65.4

Q59. Ever had an abortion 938 938 Total 100.0 - 100.0 Yes 10.8 - 10.8 No 36.5 - 36.5 No response 52.8 - 52.8

-Q60. Number of times repondent had an abortion 101 - 101

Total 100.0 - 100.0 Once 43.6 - 43.6 Twice - - -Three - - -No response 56.4 - 56.4

Continued

Table A1.8 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Health Characteristics and by Sex: Cebu City: 2009

Selected health characteristics Both sexes Male Female




Q61. Aware of HIV/AIDS 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 57.4 72.4 50.9 No 9.7 20.7 4.9 No response 32.9 6.9 44.2

Q62. How HIV/AIDS is transmitted? 771 294 477 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Blood transfusion 3.1 - 5.0 Sharing/multiple use of needles 30.7 60.9 11.9 Unprotected sex involving penetration 66.3 38.8 83.0

Q63. Know how to reduce risk of contracting HIV/AIDS 771 294 477 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 32.7 18.7 41.3 No 67.4 81.3 58.7

Q64. Know how the risk of getting infected with HIV/AIDS be reduced 252 55 197 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Regular use of condom 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q65. Aware about cybersex 1,344 406 938 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 37.5 48.9 32.7 No 29.5 44.2 23.2 No response 32.9 6.9 44.2

Q66. Engage in cybersex 505 198 306 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 39.2 100.0 -No 60.6 - 100.0





Total (Number) 398,463 193,897 204,566

Age group 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 24.1 25.4 22.9 10 - 14 22.8 23.5 22.1 15 - 17 13.9 13.7 14.2 18 - 25 39.1 37.4 40.8


Marital (civil) status 100.0 100.0 100.0 Single 94.1 96.6 91.7 Married 5.9 3.4 8.3




by Selected Demographic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009Table A2.1 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old




Total (Number) 398,463 193,897 204,565

Children 5 to 25 years old 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 24.1 25.4 22.9 10 - 14 22.8 23.5 22.1 15 - 17 13.9 13.7 14.2 18 - 25 39.1 37.4 40.8

Probable CSEC 13,083 6,247 6,836 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

5 - 9 - - - 10 - 14 25.6 36.9 15.4 15 - 17 35.6 22.3 47.8 18 - 25 38.8 40.8 36.9

Identified CSEC 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

5 - 9 - - - 10 - 14 14.5 19.7 11.2 15 - 17 42.3 21.5 55.3 18 - 25 43.2 58.8 33.5


Age group

by Age Group and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009Table A2.2 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old




Total (Number) 13,083 6,247 6,836

Age group 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 - - -

10 - 14 25.6 36.9 15.4 15 - 17 35.6 22.3 47.8 18 - 25 38.8 40.8 36.9

Highest grade completed 100.0 100.0 100.0 No grade completed - - -Elementary undergraduate 16.5 13.8 19.0 Elementary graduate 4.0 - 7.7 High school undergraduate 56.1 76.1 37.9 High school graduate 18.5 - 35.4 College undergraduate 4.8 10.0 -College graduate - - -




by Selected Demographic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009Table A2.3 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Probable CSEC




Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Age group 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 - 9 - - -10 - 14 14.5 19.7 11.2 15 - 17 42.3 21.5 55.3 18 - 25 43.2 58.8 33.5

Marital status 100.0 100.0 100.0 Single 100.0 100.0 100.0 Married - - -

Highest grade completed 100.0 100.0 100.0 No grade completed - - -Elementary undergraduate 10.2 - 16.5 Elementary graduate 6.9 - 11.2 High school undergraduate 64.3 78.6 55.3 High school graduate 10.4 - 16.9 College undergraduate 8.2 21.4 -College graduate - - -




Table A2.4 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Demographic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009




Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Q1. Current residenceTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 85.4 81.3 88.0 No 14.6 18.7 12.0

Q3. Length of stay 1,112 550 561 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Less than 10 years - - -Ten years or more 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q5. Activity done in previous residence 1,112 550 561 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Too young to do anything - - -Nothing - - -Study - - -Help in household enterprise - - -Others - - -Do not know 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q6. Reason for leaving previous residence 1,112 550 561 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Due to family migration - - -Due to marriage - - -Others 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q7. Religion 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Roman Catholic 100.0 100.0 100.0

Q8. Number of siblings including self 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 One - - -Two 15.6 18.7 13.7 Three 7.4 - 12.0 Four 15.4 21.4 11.7 Five 8.3 21.5 -Six 21.7 38.4 11.2 More than 6 31.6 - 51.4

Continued

Selected socio- economic characteristics

Table A2.5 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC by Selected Socio-Economic Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009




Q9. Birth order 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 First child 33.4 19.7 42.0 Second child 33.4 40.1 29.1 Third child 10.4 - 16.9 Fourth child 15.7 21.5 12.0 Sixth child 7.2 18.7 -

Q10. Can read and write a simple sentence 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 100.0 100.0 100.0 No - - -

Q11. Have ever attended school? 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 100.0 100.0 100.0 No - - -

Q12. Currently attending school 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 34.1 41.2 29.6 No 65.9 58.8 70.4

Q13. Reason for not currently attending school (multiple responses)Total 5,020 1,728 3,292 Unwillingness 25.9 - 39.5 Cannot afford schooling 51.6 68.2 43.0 Due to work - - -Others 59.3 63.7 57.0

Q17. Has a child / children 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 20.6 - 33.5 No 79.4 100.0 66.5

Continued






Q18. Number of children currently have 1,566 - 1,566 Total 100.0 - 100.0 One child 50.6 - 50.6 Two children 49.4 - 49.4

Q19. Person taking care of child/children while working 1,566 - 1,566 Total 100.0 - 100.0 Parents 50.6 - 50.6 Partner/spouse - - -Others 49.4 - 49.4

Q20. Age when respondent started working 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 10 - 14 22.8 41.2 11.2 15 - 17 16.6 21.2 13.7 18 - 25 27.8 18.7 33.5 No response 32.8 18.7 41.6

Q21. Activity before current work 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Attended school 31.1 41.0 24.9 Worked in an establishment/workshop - - -Worked in own family operated farm/business - - -Others 15.5 40.2 -No response 53.4 18.7 75.1

Q22. Reason for choosing present work 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Low remuneration in previous job - - -Poverty 38.2 81.3 11.2 Lured by friends/peers 10.2 - 16.5 Others 10.4 - 16.9 No response 41.2 18.7 55.3







Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Q23. Method of recruitmentTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Myself no one 31.3 81.3 -Recruited by employer 10.2 - 16.5 Others 15.3 - 24.9 No response 43.2 18.7 58.6

Q24. Person who helped the respondent get his present jobTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Myself no one 23.9 40.2 13.7 Parents/family members 10.4 - 16.9 Friends 32.9 41.0 27.8 Others 32.8 18.7 41.6

Q25. Number of hoursTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 - 2 hours 17.3 - 28.1 3 - 4 hours 15.9 41.2 -5 - 8 hours 7.2 18.7 -9 - 12 hours 18.4 21.4 16.5 No response 41.2 18.7 55.3

Q26. Number of days a respondent work in a weekTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 One day - - -Two days 22.7 41.0 11.2 Three days 15.5 40.2 -Four days - - -Five days - - -Six days 10.2 - 16.5 Seven days 10.4 - 16.9 No response 41.2 18.7 55.3

Q27. Type of clientsTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Youth (less than 35 years old) 32.9 41.2 27.8 Adults 10.4 - 16.9 Others 23.9 40.1 13.7 No response 32.8 18.7 41.6

Continued


by Selected Work Characteristics and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009Table A2.6 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSEC




Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Q28. Number of clients respondent met daily 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 one 17.1 - 27.8 Two 31.3 81.3 -Three or more - - -No response 51.6 18.7 72.2

Q29. Clients use condomTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 8.4 - 13.7 Some of them 17.4 18.7 16.5 No 31.0 62.5 11.2 No response 43.2 18.7 58.6

Q30. How often a respondent had a conflict with clientsTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sometimes 23.1 59.9 -Never 18.4 21.4 16.5 Don't Know 15.3 - 24.9 No response 43.2 18.7 58.6

Q31. Have been forced or beaten for non-cooperationTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes - - -No 56.8 81.3 41.4 No response 43.2 18.7 58.6

Q32. Receive renumerationTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 48.4 81.3 27.8 No 8.4 - 13.7 No response 43.2 18.7 58.6

Q33. Average pay per dayTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Less than 100 - - -100 - 300 31.0 62.5 11.2 301 - 500 17.4 18.7 16.5 No response 51.6 18.8 72.2

Continued






Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Q34. Source of renumerationTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Employer - - -Customer/client 48.4 81.3 27.8 Both - - -No response 51.6 18.7 72.2

Q35. Basis of paymentTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Every two weeks 10.2 - 16.5 Per day/per night 30.0 59.9 11.2 Per activity 8.2 21.3 -Others 10.4 - 16.9 No response 41.2 18.8 55.3

Q36. Respondent gets extra money from clientsTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 10.2 - 16.5 No 38.2 81.3 11.2 No response 51.6 18.7 72.2

Q37. What is done with the income earnedTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Pay rent 7.6 19.7 -Give to parents/family 22.4 40.2 11.2 Personal needs 18.4 21.4 16.5 No response 51.6 18.7 72.2

Q39. Possiblity that the respondent can leave current jobTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 42.0 42.9 41.4 No 14.8 38.4 -No response 43.2 18.7 58.6

Q40. Family's knowledge of respondent's place of workTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 18.4 21.4 16.5 No 38.4 59.9 24.9 No response 43.2 18.7 58.6

Q41. Family's knowledge of respondent's type of workTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 10.2 - 16.5 No 46.6 81.3 24.9 No response 43.2 18.7 58.6







Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Q42. Heard about children traffickingTotal 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 25.9 40.2 16.9 No 48.5 41.0 53.2 No response 25.6 18.7 29.9

Q43. Sources of knowledge on trafficking (Multiple response) 1,974 1,182 792 Newspaper 59.9 100.0 -Radio/Television 59.9 100.0 -Friends 72.1 53.5 100.0 Pamphlets/posters 27.9 46.5 -

Q44. Knowledge of the trafficked child's gender 1,974 1,182 792 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Girls only 100.0 100.0 100.0 Boys only - - -No response - - -

Q45. Involved in trafficking (Multiple response) 1,974 1,182 792 Family members 59.9 100.0 -Relatives 32.0 53.5 -Friends 59.9 100.0 -Neighbors 27.9 46.5 -Others 40.1 - 100.0

Q46. Responsible for child trafficking 1,974 1,182 792 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Men - - -Women 32.0 53.5 -Both - - -Don't know 68.0 46.5 100.0

Q47. Victim of child trafficking 1,974 1,182 792 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes - - -No 100.0 100.0 100.0


Knowledge and attitude about trafficking

Table A2.7 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSECby Knowledge and Attitude About Trafficking and by Sex, Cebu City: 2009




Total (Number) 7,617 2,938 4,679

Q56. Most frequently experienced health problem (Multiple response)TotalNone/No health problem 39.4 62.5 24.9 Fever/dizziness/headache 24.6 18.7 28.3 Lower back aches 7.2 18.7 -Others 10.4 - 16.9 No response 25.6 18.7 29.9

Q57. Person consulted (Mutiple response) 2,665 550 2,115 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Doctor 70.3 100.0 62.6 Nurse - - -Person in pharmacy - - -Others 29.7 - 37.4

Q58. Have stopped working for the last one year due to sickness 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes - - -No 27.8 18.7 33.5 No response 72.2 81.3 66.5

Q59. Ever had an abortion 4,679 - 4,679 Total 100.0 - 100.0 Yes - - -No 84.1 - 58.4 No response 15.9 - 41.6

Q61. Aware of HIV/AIDS 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 44.4 40.1 47.1 No 30.0 41.2 23.0 No response 25.6 18.7 29.9

Continued

Table A2.8 Number and Percent Distribution of Children 5 to 25 Years Old Who are Identified as CSECby Selected Health Characteristics and by Sex: Cebu City: 2009




Q62. How HIV/AIDS is transmitted? 3,384 1,178 2,206 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Blood transfusion 18.5 53.3 -Sharing/multiple use of needles 18.9 - 29.0 Unprotected sex involving penetration 62.5 46.7 71.0

Q63. Know how to reduce risk of contracting HIV/AIDS 3,384 1,178 2,206 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 60.9 53.3 64.9 No 39.1 46.7 35.1

Q64. Know how the risk of getting infected with HIV/AIDS be reduced 2,059 627 1,432 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Regular use of condom 61.5 100.0 44.7

Avoiding sex involving penetration 38.5 - 55.3

Q65. Aware about cybersex 7,617 2,938 4,679 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes 58.8 81.3 44.7 No 15.6 - 25.4 No response 25.6 18.7 29.9

Q66. Engage in cybersex 4,479 2,388 2,091 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes - - -No 100.0 100.0 100.0





Upper limit Lower limit

Cebu City 1,344 399 29.7 442 2,246

Age group 10 ‐ 14 136 91 67.2 (71) 343 15 ‐ 17 245 103 41.8 14 477 18 ‐ 25 963 320 33.2 239 1,686

SexMale 406 293 72.1 (256) 1,068 Female 938 208 22.1 468 1,408

Highest grade completedElementary undergraduate 60 60 100.0 (75) 195 Elementary graduate 203 89 44.0 1 405 High school undergraduate 622 239 38.5 80 1,163 High school graduate 236 76 32.2 64 408 College undergraduate 223 72 32.3 60 387

Reason for engaging in this activityLow renumeration 91 64 70.8 (55) 236 Poverty 279 94 33.7 67 492 Lured by friends 68 46 67.8 (36) 171 Others 24 24 100.0 (30) 79 No response 882 325 36.9 146 1,619


Confidence interval

Table A1. Standard Error of Selected Characteristics of Identified CSEC, Cebu City: 2009(Approach 1)

Selected characteristics Estimate Standard

error Coefficient of variation (CV)


Lower limit Upper limit

Cebu City 7,617 2,617 34.4 891 14,343

Age group 10 ‐ 14 1,103 1,103 100.0 (1,733) 3,939 15 ‐ 17 3,220 1,153 35.8 255 6,184 18 ‐ 25 3,294 1,108 33.6 446 6,142

SexMale 2,938 2,270 77.3 (2,897) 8,773 Female 4,679 452 9.7 3,516 5,842

Highest grade completedElementary undergraduate 774 774 100.0 (1,216) 2,765 Elementary graduate 525 525 100.0 (825) 1,875 High school undergraduate 4,898 2,606 53.2 (1,802) 11,598 High school graduate 792 792 100.0 (1,244) 2,827 College undergraduate 627 627 100.0 (985) 2,240

Reason for engaging in this activityPoverty 2,913 2,246 77.1 (2,860) 8,686 Lured by friends 774 774 100.0 (1,216) 2,765 Others 792 792 100.0 (1,244) 2,827 No response 3,138 1,099 35.0 312 5,964


Confidence interval

Table A2. Standard Error of Selected Characteristics of Identified CSEC, Cebu City: 2009(Approach 2)

Selected characteristics Estimate Standard

error Coefficient of variation (CV)


APPENDIX B

Survey Forms and Questionnaires

Phi

ilippine Pilot S

Survey on CSE

EC, NSO – ILO

LO

8

Appendix

83

x B1


SCY Form 1

Sheet ___of ___sheets GEOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION CODES Name of Respondent:

Name of Household Head: Line No. Mun. / City

Barangay Address:

EA ……………………….

………………………. INTERVIEW STATUS

HCN ……………………….

1 - Completed interview

2 - Refusal

3 - Temporary away / Not at home / On vacation

4 - Vacant housing unit

5 - Housing unit demolished, destroyed by fire,

typhoon, etc.

6 - Others, specify ___________________

7 - Critical areas, flooded areas

Visit Number 1 2 3 Date of visit Time began Time ended Result

Total number of visit ……………………………

Result of final visit ……………………………..

Result codes 1 Completed interview 2 Refusal 3 Household not around 4 Partly completed 5 Postponed 6 Others, specify ____________________

Household Questionnaire

SHSN

Province

CERTIFICATION

Date Accomplished

Signature Over Printed Name of Enumerator

Signature Over Printed Name of Supervisor

(ENCIRCLE AND ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE)

Date Accomplished

INTERVIEW RECORD

No. of HH in the Housing Unit …..

were obtained/reviewed by me personally and in accordance

with instructions.

I hereby certify that the data gathered in this questionnaire

All information obtained are strictly confidential.

SURVEY ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

CONFIDENTIALITY

Appendix B2


L i n e

H ousehold m em bers R elationship Sex M arita l/ H ighest D id you as of date o f vis it to C ivil grade have

n household status com pleted a job or u head 1 - M business m 2 - F during the b (Last nam e, F irs t nam e) past twelve e m onths? r

1- Y ES 2- N O ,

go to nextHH m em ber

(E nter (E nter (E nter (E nter C ode) Code) Code) Code)

(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5A ) (6) (7) (8)

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

EN D

Age asof las t

b irthday

(If no m em bers5-25 years o ld ,

IN TER VIEW )

D E M O G R AP H IC C H AR AC TE R IS TIC S

ALL H O U SEH O LD M EM B ER S For 5 years o ld and over

C heck co lum n 5A

if 5-25 years o ld

01 - Head02 - S pouse03 - S on/Daughter04 - B rother/S is ter05 - S on-in-law/Daughter-in-law06 - G randson/G randdaughter07 - Father/M other08 - O ther re lative09 - B oarder10 - Dom estic helper11 - Non re lative

C odes for Colum n 3 (R elationsh ip to HH head):

1 - S ing le2 - M arried3 - W idowed4 - D ivorced/Separated5 - U nknown6 - Annulled

C odes for C o lum n 6 (M arita l / C ivil s tatus):

0 - N o grade com ple ted1 - E lem entary undergraduate2 - E lem entary g raduate3 - H igh schoo l undergraduate4 - H igh schoo l g raduate5 - C o llege undergraduate6 - C o llege graduate or h igher

C odes for C o lum n 7(H ighest grade com pleted:

Appendix B2 continued…


L i n e

Class What Do Class What is of is the you of the

n worker nature have worker nature u of your other of your m employ- job? employ- b ment? ment? e r 1- YES

2- NO,go tonextHH

memberPSOC PSIC (Enter (Enter PSOC PSIC (Enter (Enter Code Code Code) Code) Code Code Code) Code)

(9) (10) (10A) (11) (11A) (12) (13) (14) (15) (15A) (16) (16A) (17) (18)

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

3

5 to 25 yrs. old)

the list below, assign

e.g. private school, teacher,

5 to 25 yrs. old)

the list below, assign

e.g. private school,

5 to 25 yrs. old)

the list below, assign SCY Form 2 for

palay farmer, etc.)

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

e.g. elementary (Specify occupation, (Specify industry

e.g. elementary

SCY Form 2 for5 to 25 yrs. old)

What is your What is the What is your

teacher,

(Specify occupation, (Specify industry

palay farmer, etc.)palay farm, etc.)

SCY Form 2 for

(If industry is in(If occupation is in (If industry is in

SCY Form 2 for

(If occupation is inthe list below, assign

palay farm, etc.)

For 5 years old and over

occupation? kind of business/industry of this work?

What is theother occupation? kind of business/

industry of this work?

0 - Worked for private household1 - Worked for private establishment/corporation2 - Worked for gov't/gov't corporation3 - Self employed without any employee4 - Employer in own family-operated farm or business5 - Worked with pay on own family-operated farm or business6 - Worked without pay on own family-operated farm or business

Codes for Columns 12 and 17 (Class or worker):

1 - Permanent job/business/unpaid family work 2 - Short-term or seasonal or casual unpaid family work3 - Worked for different employer on day to day or week to week.

Codes for Column 13 and 18 (Nature of Employment)

List of SCY Occupation and Industry

Code Occupation 3473 - Dancer, musician, singer in beerhouse/nightclub 5123 - Waitress 5151 - Attendant, sauna bath 5159 - Hospitality girl, hostess or ushers

Code Industry5523 - Day and night clubs5524 - Bars and cocktail lounge5529 - Restaurant, bars, canteens and eating and drinking places9219 - Other entertainment activities9309 - Other services activities



REMARKS/OBSERVATION:



Appendix B3

LINE NO. LINE NO.COPY HERE LINE NUMBER OF THE CHILDNAME OF CHILD

P1 What is your past time?1 ‐ Hanging out with friends in their home2 ‐ Internet Chatting

3 ‐ Watching movies in theaters Past time 1 Past time 1

4 ‐ Spending time in parks/other recreation areas Past time 2 Past time 2

5 ‐ Others, specify _________________________ Past time 3 Past time 3

P2 Where do you usually go/hang‐out?1 ‐ Internet Cafe/ Internet Shop 6 ‐ Pier/Port2 ‐ Plaza/Park 7 ‐ Gambling places3 ‐ Mall 8 ‐ Not hanging out Place 1 Place 14 ‐ Bar 9 ‐ Others, Specify Place 2 Place 25 ‐ Friends House Place 3 Place 3

P3 What time do you usually come home?1 ‐ Not hanging/going out 6 ‐ between 9PM to 10PM2 ‐ not later than 6PM 7 ‐ between 10PM to 11PM3 ‐ between 6PM to 7PM 8 ‐ between 11PM to 12PM4 ‐ between 7PM to 8PM 9 ‐ after midnight5 ‐ between 8PM to 9PM 10 ‐ Others, Specify

P4 Do you have vices?1 ‐ YES2 ‐ NO

P5 Do you depend on your parents/guardian for your daily needs?1 ‐ YES2 ‐ NO

P6 Are you currently attending school?1 ‐ YES, proceed to Question P72 ‐ NO, Ask next child/End Interview

P7 Who is supporting for your tuition?1 ‐ Parents 5 ‐ Boyfriend/Girlfriend2 ‐ Relatives 6 ‐ Acquaintance3 ‐ Self 7 ‐ Others, specify Tuition 1 Tuition 14 ‐ Friends Tuition 2 Tuition 2

Tuition 3 Tuition 3

P8 Where do you usually go after school?1 ‐ Internet Cafe/ Internet Shop 6 ‐ Pier/Port After 1 After 12 ‐ Plaza/Park 7 ‐ Gambling places After 2 After 23 ‐ Mall 8 ‐ Night Clubs After 3 After 34 ‐ Bar 9 ‐ Not hanging out5 ‐ Friends House 10 ‐ Others, Specify ASK NEXT CHILD/ ASK NEXT CHILD/

END INTERVIEW END INTERVIEW

P9 FOR BIDLISIW SUPERVISOR ONLYIS THE CHILD QUALIFIED FOR SCY FORM 2 INTERVIEW?

1 ‐ YES2 ‐ NO

SURVEY ON CHILDREN AND YOUTHPROBING QUESTIONS for SCY FORM 1


BY SUPERVISOR

GEOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION CODES Nam e of Child:

Line No. Place of Interview:

Mun. / C ity

Barangay Usual Occupation:

EA … … … … … … … … … . Job 1

SHSN … … … … … … … … … . Job 2

HCN … … … … … … … … … . Kind of Industry:

Job 1

Job 2

Class of W orker:

Job 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Job 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If child has no job/earning activity at all,

INTERVIEW STATUS

Total num ber of visit … … … … … … … … … … … … ..

Result of final visit … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. 1 - Com pleted interview

Result codes 2 - Refusal

1 Com pleted interview 3 - Tem porary away / Not at hom e / On vacation

2 Refusal 4 - Vacant housing unit

3 Household not around 5 - Housing unit dem olished, destroyed by fire,

4 Partly com pleted typhoon, etc. 5 Postponed 6 O thers, specify __________________ 6 O thers, specify __________________ 7 - Critical areas, flooded areas

CONFIDENTIALITY

SURVEY ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

(5 - 25 Years Old)

All inform ation obtained are strictly confidential.

Individual Questionnaire

SCY Form 2 TO BE ACCOMPLISHED

Signature Over Printed Nam e of Supervisor

Date Accom plished

END INTERVIEW

Province

INTERVIEW RECORD

No. of HH in the Housing Unit … ..

by m e personally and in accordance with instructions.

Date Accom plished

Signature Over Printed Nam e of Enum erator

(EN C IRCLE AN D EN TER TH E APPRO PRIATE CO D E)

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the data gathered in this questionnaire were obtained/reviewed

Visit Num ber 1 2 3 Date of vis it T im e began T im e ended Result

REMARKS:

Appendix B4


Q1 Is your current place of residence your birthplace?

1 - Yes, proceed to Q72 - No, proceed to ask Q2

Q2 If NO, where is your birthplace? Province ________________

Municipality _____________

Q3 How long have you lived in this current place? (in complete year)

Q4 Where did you live before you came to the current place of residence?

Province Municipality

Q5 What did you usually do in the previous place of residence? 1 - Too young to do anything 2 - Nothing 3 - Study 4 - Help in household farm 5 - Help in household enterprise 6 - Others, specify _________________ 7 - Don't Know

Q6 Why did you leave your previous place of residence? 1 - Due to family migration 2 - Due to marriage 3 - Others, specify _________________

Q7 What is your religion? 1 - Roman Catholic 5 - Iglesia ni Cristo 2 - Islam 6 - Others, specify ________________ 3 - Evangelical 7 - Don't Know 4 - Aglipayan

Q8 Including yourself, how many living brothers and sisters do you have?

(as of date of visit)

Q9 What is your birth order?

Q10 (In case of doubt, verify whether the respondent can read and write a simple message in any language) 1 - Yes 2 - No

Q11 Have you ever attended school? 1 - Yes 2 - No, go to Q14

Q12 Are you currently attending school? 1 - Yes, go to Q15 2 - No

2

SECTION A. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENT

Can you read and write?



Q13 If no, what are the reasons? ( A maximum of 3 reasons in priority order)

1 - Unwillingness 2 - Cannot afford schooling 3 - Due to work 4 - No need of more education 5 - School is too far 6 - Others, specify ____________ 7 - Don't Know

(Skip to Q15)

Q14 What are the reasons for not ever attending school? ( A maximum of 3 reasons in priority order) 1 - Parents did not send 5 - School is too far 2 - Cannot afford schooling 6 - Others, specify ____________ 3 - To work for own family 7 - Don't Know 4 - To work for others

Q15 What is your highest educational attainment? 0 - No grade completed 4 - High school graduate 1 - Elementary undergraduate 5 - College undergraduate 2 - Elementary graduate 6 - College graduate 3 - High school undergraduate

Q16 What is your marital status? 1 - Single 4 - Divorced/separated 2 - Married 5 - Unknown 3 - W idowed 6 - Annulled

Q17 Do you have a child/children? 1- Yes 2 - No, proceed to Section B

Q18 How many living children do you currently have?

PROBE FURTHER IF RESPONDENT IS ELIGIBLE TO ANSWER SECTION B, IF NOT END INTERVIEW.(Check if Q17 is "No" and skip to Q20)

Q19 Who take care of your children when you are at "work"? 1 - Parents 2 - Partner/spouse 3 - Others, specify _____________

Q20 How old were you when you first started working? (In complete years)

Q21 What did you do before the present work?

1 - Attended school 4 - Worked as domestic worker 2 - Worked in an establishment/workshop 5 - Others, specify _________ 3- Worked in own family operated farm/business

Q22 Why did you choose the present work? 1 - Low remuneration in previous job 5 - Loss of previous job 2 - Punishment/harassment in previous job 6 - Deceived/tricked 3 - Poverty 7 - Sold by family members/relative 4 - Lured by friends/peers 8 - Others, specify __________

SECTION A. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENT

SECTION B. WORK HISTORY




Q23 1 - Parents/other relatives forced me to work 2 - Parents/other relatives sold me 3 - Recruited by employer 4 - Decided by myself to work here 5 - Deceived/tricked into working 6 - Promised employment 7 - Others, specify__________

Q24 Who was the key person to your entry in this work? 1 - Myself, no one 6 - Neighbor 2 - Parents/family members 7 - Local broker/recruiter 3 - Relatives 8 - Outside broker/recruiter 4 - Lover 9 - Others, specify ______________ 5 - Friends

Q25 On the average, how many hours do you work per day? (Report up to half an hour) hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q26 How many days in a week do you work?

Q27 Who are normally your customers? Local: 1 - Youth (less than 35 years old) 3 - Foreigners 2 - Adults 4 - Others, specify _________________

Q28 How many customers do you normally have in a day?

Q29 Do your customers normally use condoms?

1 - Yes 2 - Some of them 3 - No

Q30 How often do you witness/experience conflict with your customers?

1 - Always 4 - Never 2 - Sometimes 5 - Don't know 3 - Seldom

Q31 Have you been forced or beaten by your customer/employer for non-cooperation? 1 - Yes 2 - No

Q32 Do you receive remuneration? 1 - Yes 2 - No, go to Q38

Q33 On the average, how much do you get paid per day? (In Peso)

Q34 From whom do you receive renumeration? 1 - Employer 2 - Customer/client 3 - Both

Q35 What is your basis of payment (in cash/in kind)?

1 - Monthly 4 - Per hour 2 - Every two weeks 5 - Per activity 3 - Per day/per night 6 - Others, specify ________________

Q36 Do you get extra money from your customers/employer? 1 - Yes 2 - No

SECTION B. WORK HISTORY How were you recruited to your present work?


Q37 What do you do with the money you earn? (at most three reasons)

1 - Pay rent 5 - Pay debts (besides from employer) 2 - Give to parents/family 6 - Personal needs 3 - Pay some back to employer 7 - Savings 4 - Schooling 8 - Others, specify __________________

Q38 Aside from your current job what other work do you do? (A maximum of 3 sources in priority order)

1 - Receptionist 5 - Waitress 9 - None 2 - Call center agent 6 - Entertainer 3 - Salesperson 7 - Beautician 4 - Massage 8 - Others, specify ________________

Q39 Can you leave your work when you want to?

1 - Yes 2 - No

Q40 Does your family know where you are working?

1 - Yes 2 - No

Q41 Does your family know what type of business you are involved in?

1 - Yes 2 - No

Q42 Have you ever heard about trafficking of children?

1 - Yes, 2 - No, go to Q56

Q43 From where do you know about trafficking of children? ( A maximum of 3 sources in priority order)

1 - Books 5 - Family members 2 - Newspaper 6 - Neighbors 3 - Radio/television 7 - Pamphlets/posters 4 - Friends 8 - Others, specify ______________

Q44 Do you know about the sex of the trafficked children?

1 - Only girls 2 - Only boys 3 - Both boys and girls

Q45 Who do you think are involved in trafficking of children? ( A maximum of 3 sources in priority order)

1 - Family members 4 - Neighbors 2 - Relatives 5 - Others, specify_______________ 3 - Friends

Q46 In your opinion, who are generally responsible for trafficking?

1 - Men 3 - Both 2 - Women 4 - Don't know

Q47 Have you ever been a victim of trafficking?

1 - Yes 2 - No, go to Q56

SECTION B. WORK HISTORY

SECTION C. KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE ABOUT TRAFFICKING



Q48 How long ago? ______years _______monthsyears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q49 What was the method used for trafficking you?

1 - Kidnapping/abduction 4 - Pretext of visit of relatives/friends 2 - Pretext of marriage 5 - Others, specify_______________ 3 - Pretext of job

Q50 Who were involved in trafficking you? (a maximum of 3 response in priority order)

01 - Husband 07 - Friends 02 - Parents 08 - Neighbors 03 - Sisters 09 - Employer 04 - Brothers 10 - Police 05 - Uncle 11 - Unfamiliar person 06 - Lovers 12 - Others, specify_________________

Q51 At that time you were trafficked where were you taken from?

1 - From the place of residence 4 - From market/shopping center 2 - From the place of work 5 - Schools/universities/colleges 3 - From relative's home 6 - Others, specify_______________

Q52 How many persons accompanied you during your transfer to your workplace?number of males . . . . . . . .

number of females . . . . . . .

Q53 Were you given neurotic drugs during travel?

1 - Yes 2 - No

Q54 Do you know that trafficking of children is an unlawful act?

1 - Yes 2 - No

Q55 What do you think are needed to help stop trafficking of children and youth?

1 - Awareness raising/education about trafficking 2 - More livelihood opportunities for families 3 - Stronger enforcement of the law/law enforcement 4 - Others, specify _____________________

Q56 In general, what health problem have you experienced most frequently? (At most 3 options in order of gravity)

1 - None/no health problem, go to Q59 2 - Cuts/swollen hands 3 - Sprains, accidents, injuries at work 4 - Fever/dizzeness/headache 5 - Lower back aches 6 - Ulcer 7 - Sexually transmitted diseases (STD) (ex: gonorrhea/lower abdominal pain/ vaginal discharge/vaginal itching sores) 8 - Others, specify ____________________

SECTION C. KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE ABOUT TRAFFICKING

Enter "1- yes" if appicable and "2-No", if otherwise

SECTION D. HEALTH



Q57 Whom do you generally consult? (More than one code is applicable)

1 - Doctor 2 - Nurse 3 - Person in pharmacy 4 - Traditional healer 5 - Others, specify_______________

Q58 During the last one year, have you stopped working due to sickness?

1 - Yes 2 - No

Q59 Have you had any abortion? (For female respondent only; if male, skip to Section E)


Q60 If yes, how many times have you had an abortion?

Q61 Are you aware of HIV / AIDS?


Q62 How do you think HIV/AIDS is transmitted?

1 - Mother to child 2 - Blood transfusions 3 - Sharing/multiple use of needles 4 - Unprotected sex involving penetration 5 - Others, specify_______________

Q63 Do you know how to reduce the risk of being infected with HIV/AIDS? 1 - Yes 2 - No, go to Q65

Q64 If yes, how the risk can be reduced?

1 - Regular use of condom 2 - Avoiding multiple partners 3 - Avoiding sex involving penetration 4 - Abstinence/reduce frequency of sex 5 - Others, specify_______________

Q65 Are you aware of cybersex?

1 - Yes 2 - No, Proceed to Section G

Q66 Have you engaged in cybersex?

1 - Yes 2 - No, Proceed to Section G

SECTION D. HEALTH

SECTION E. KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HIV /AIDS

SECTION F. AWARENESS OF CYBERSEX



Q67 1 - Approach 1 (Listing), proceed to 2 - Approach 2 (Adaptive Sampling), proceed to

(Encircle 1 for "Yes" and 2 for "No" and write in the code box)

Q68entertainment activities or other services? (Encircle 1 for "Yes" and 2 for "No" and write in the code box)

1 - Yes, fill up the matrix below and go to the referred child/household

2 - No, go to the next sample household listed in SCY Form 3 - List of Sample Households

Is the hh within:1 - within the EA2 - within the Brgy3 - within Cebu City

(1)12345

Q69 How would you assess the respondent/s?

1 Interested 1 YES 2 NO

2 Cooperative 1 YES 2 NO

3 Attentive 1 YES 2 NO

4 Approachable/friendly 1 YES 2 NO

5 Others, specify ______ 1 YES 2 NO

Q70 W ere there people around during the interview?

1 Interfere 1 YES 2 NO

2 Butt-in/supply answer 1 YES 2 NO

3 Listening only 1 YES 2 NO4 Just curious 1 YES 2 NO5 Others, specify ______ 1 YES 2 NO

Q71 Is the household an original sample of SCY Form 3?

1 YES, 2 NO, report Source of Referral below

Q72 a. Name of child _______________ d. Barangay Code . . . . . .b. Name of household head _________________ e. HCN . . . . . . . . . . . . . .c. Name of barangay _______________________ f. Is the hh within the EA?

1-W /in EA 2-w/in bgy 3-w/in Cebu City

SECTION J. REMARKS/OBSERVATION

Do you know of any other child/ren aged 5 to 25 years old in your area who is/are engaged in

Address of the Housing Unit Note: Indicate landmarks near

the housing unit or building

(2)

SECTION I. EVALUATION OF THE RESPONDENT BY THE INTERVIEWER

SECTION H. CHILD REFERRALS

(3) (4) (5)

HH No

.Name of Child Name of the HH

head

ACCOMPLISH SCY FORM 1.INTERVIEW THE REFERRED CHILD/CHILDREN USING SCY FORM 2 AND

SECTION G. TYPE OF APPROACHWHAT TYPE OF APPROACH ARE YOU USING?

SECTION I SECTION H



Appendix B5

98

P

Philippine Pilot

t Survey on CS

CSEC, NSO-IL

Appendix B6

LO


APPENDIX C Persons Involved in the

2009 Pilot Survey on CSEC


Appendix C

TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP

Carmelita Ericta Paula Monina Collado Rosalinda Bautista Socorro Abejo Arturo Pacificador, Jr. – Statistical Consultant

NSO CENTRAL OFFICE

Technical Staff

Emma Fabian Sotera De Guzman Blanca Ortiz Glenn Barcenas Delia Belmonte

Information Technology

Valentino Abuan Veronica Pido Gene Lorica Nazaria Guerra Corazon De Luna Karina Paz Bacuyag

Data Processing

Necita Adduru Norma Meraña Solficar Pescuela Susan Anis Lorna Balindres Monina Glumalid Namer Ariate Glowina Hipolito Nenita Marquez Lucila Villaruz Arlene Abuan

Statistical Support

Estelita Marquez Rosita Lagunda Teresita Ramos Eduardo Rosales Ma. Neliza Manalili Ofelia Ramos Marilyn Victoriano Ma. Antonia Valencerina Loreto Tarroza Elizabeth Agnol John Carlos Longgakit Arleenjun Agcaoili

Financial and Administrative Support

Vilma Malumay Flor Candelaria Rosalinda Rodriguez Alma Atmosfera Socorro Constantino Roberto Fortes Ramon Dolor Francisco Ureña


Appendix C Continued…

NSO CENTRAL VISAYAS REGIONAL OFFICE Field Operations

Ariel Florendo Firmo Diputado Larenda Patalinghug Myrna Trinidad Cataluna Jose Ronie Pedroza Chona Comision Greg Segovia Jonathan Tangente Teresita Seno Marjorie Casalinas

Administrative Support

Candida Taghap Rowena Carriaga Felixberto Sato, Jr. Ruby Deresas Junette Cabrera Lyn Ardon Felipe Beltran Jr. Leslie Marie Zuasula Mark Aldeguer Irish Bontilao Noel Rafols Lorna Chan Alex Clarus Ramil Cabuguas Evelyn Patriarca Leonardo Matas Isabel Hinampas Margie Elic Gil Breiane Billones Rowena Bornia Richy Amatong Leonardo Matas Carmel Barcenas Ed Manguilimotan

BIDLISIW FOUNDATION INC.

Data Collection Operations

Lolita Ganapin Christopher Samson Pamela Uy Pablita Alindajao

Field Supervisors/Enumerators

Jennifer Abellana Daisy Temple Edna Jalalon Marilyn Baguid Marilyn Ponce Celia Serapica Cristor Langgamen Patricia Caro Michelle Serviano Erlinda Parame Lodegario Rollan


Appendix C continued... Enumerators

Maribel Abellana Roy Encenzo Honey Ve Mendoza Gemma Aborido Roderick Espinosa Loui Montayre Gerald Amores Wilma Fabricante Merneil Napao Lovenniel Alindajao Arvin Fergus Judith Ocana Leslie Alindao Merlina Flores James Paul Oseo Jay Michael Avenido Cherrilyn Gelay Marjorie Pardillo Gerrome Aves Julius Geronimo Leo Perol Candice Bag-id Rodelis Goc-ong Christopher Steven Pino Karen Baladjay Flordeliza Heyrosa Rowena Ramirez John Eugene Binondo Dina Jakosalem Jonarie Rubio Juven Bontes Archie Jampazar Evelynda Roble Iris Bontog Jecelou Juico Catherine Sablada Lorna Cabanes Ofelia Laurel Benjie Sala Felvinge Candido Vincent Mark Luce Marylou Sarno Angelita Echivarre Christine Lucero Honey Clover Sato Joseph Rey Canete Llonela Lopez Antonia Sumalinog Romel Canoog Arlin Ludia Gina Tagayong Cherly Canoy Ma. Ellen Mahilum Roldan Tagpuno Jaynelyn Cornito Jennifer Mangubat Marisol Vasquez Cristina Delator Charles Martel Jeve Villaber Richel Echivarre Flora Mae Mejias Honey Villamor Flora Encenzo Dolores Medalla Jeffrey Villamor

CHILD-CAUSE ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONS

Patricia Luna - DSWD, NCR Asuncion Flores - DSWD, NCR Teresita Valentino - DSWD, NCR Josie Gueriba - DSWD, Marilac Hills Maribeth Casin - Bureau of Women and Young Workers (BWYW – DOLE) Anastacio Lagumbay, Jr. - National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) Consolacion Salcedo - Council for Welfare of Children Atty. Liwliwa Agbayani - International Justice Mission, Inc. (IJM) Efren Damas - World Vision Development Foundation, Inc.


GLOSSARY

Unconditional worst forms of child labour (UWFCL)

Also termed as ‘worst forms of child labour other than hazardous work’, following adoption of the Resolution concerning the Statistics of Child Labour on 5 December 2008 by the 18th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, are defined as those child labour (CL) activities that are so fundamentally at odds with children’s basic human rights that they are absolutely prohibited for all persons under the age of 18. These UWFCL are identified as slavery, trafficking in children, debt bondage and other forms of forced labor, forced recruitment of children for use in armed conflict, use of children in prostitution and pornography, and engagement of children for illicit activities including drugs trafficking.1

Child labor Refers to any work or participation by a

child in the production of goods and services. The work subjects him/her to economic exploitation, or that is likely to be hazardous for the child or that interferes with the child’s education, or that is harmful to the child’s health of physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development.

Commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC)

The 1996 World Congress against CSEC defined commercial sexual exploitation of children as “sexual abuse by the adult and remuneration in cash or in kind to the child or a third person or persons. The child is treated as a sexual object and as a commercial object.”

1 ILO Convention No. 182 (C182) provides a more precise definition and further details.


Age The completed age in years as of last birthday. R.A. 7610 and R.A. 9208 under the Philippine Law declare a child to be at age below 18. The child’s age covered in the survey was relaxed to cover age 5-25 in order to capture misreporting of age of minors working in the entertainment industry who claimed to be 18 years old and above.

Child trafficking The Philippine Republic Act (R.A.) 9208 defines trafficking as “the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.”

Domain A domain is referred to as a subgroup of the population in which separate estimates of adequate precision are desired. The NSO MS used region as domain. For this survey, some modifications were made to provide baseline information in Cebu City.


Master Sample (MS) A master sample is defined as a sample from which subsamples are drawn to serve the needs of several surveys. Master samples are usually employed for several surveys covering different themes that are integrated in terms of target population, sample design and field operations. The use of master samples promotes efficiency on the use of limited resources (e.g. single cost for the development of survey design and preparation of sampling frames). It also allows the linking of the different survey variables thereby creating a richer database for more meaningful and useful analyses.

Households-based survey In a household-based survey, the respondents are interviewed in the households.

Sampling A process of choosing a subset of the population (known as sample) with the objective of using the derived measurements from the sample to characterize the population.

final report - ilo

Documents