This Unicef study again reinforces the need to have at national and local government levels disaggregated population data and information, and in this case, on children. Child poverty in the study is disaggregated by dimension (eight of them), location, income class, ethnicity, etc. Overall, the study reveals that while poverty in general has decreased (a bit) in the 1995/2006 period, there remains disturbing disparities or inequalities, shattering, for one, the notion that cities and urban areas are places where “dreams come true.”
For example, as indicated in the figure below, severe deprivation in health (one dimension of child poverty) differs across regions (it’s interesting that Baguio City/CAR has “missing values” as always – hello, DOH-CAR?), with Region VIII (Eastern Visayas) consistently taking the top spot in the 1995/2006 period (which should make you think, what’s happening there that even Mindanao is doing better?).
Another example, across income quintiles, children who belong to the poorest quintile register the highest incidence of severe deprivation (in both one or at least two deprivations). Locating where these “poorest of the poor” are calls for referencing the data with the country’s poverty maps.
Still another example, there were more under five year-old children in urban relative to rural areas who were suspected with pneumonia and receiving antibiotics (indication of health care).
Given these geographical (regional) disparities, one of the recommendations offered through the study is to use the evidence as justification for channeling national and local resources toward mending or closing location-based disparities.