DISCLAIMER. This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Panagora Group and do not necessarily reflect the views of 
the United States Agency for International Development or of the United States government.
E-PESO
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
INCEPTIONREPORT

CONTENTS
ACRONYMS 1
E-PESO ACTIVITY BACKGROUND 1
SUB-PURPOSE 1: RAPID ADOPTION OF E-PAYMENTS IN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM 3
SUB-PURPOSE 2: INFRASTRUCTURE FOR E-PAYMENTS EXPANDED 3
SUB-PURPOSE 3: ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR E-PAYMENTS IMPROVED 3
SUB-PURPOSE 4: GAPS IN BROADER E-PAYMENT ECOSYSTEM ADDRESSED 4
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 5
EVALUATION PURPOSE 5
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 5
EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 8
METHODS 8
LIMITATIONS 11
EVALUATION PHASES AND ACTIVITIES 12
PHASE 1: INCEPTION REPORT 12
PHASE 2: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS/ INTERIM BRIEFING 12
PHASE 3: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (FCR) WORKSHOP AND 
DRAFT REPORT 12
PHASE 4: FINAL REPORT AND LEARNING EVENTS 12
EVALUATION TEAM 14
ANNEXES 15
ANNEX A. E-PESO INDICATORS 15
ANNEX B: EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX 23
ANNEX C: LIST OF DOCUMENTS 27
ANNEX D: KII GUIDES 28
ANNEX E: KEY INFORMANTS (PLANNED) 47
ANNEX F: WORK PLAN 48

USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 1
ACRONYMS
ACH automated clearing house
BIR Bureau of Internal Revenue
BSP Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategies
CDI Cities Development Initiative
CLAimDev Collaborating, Learning and Adapting for Improved Development
COP Chief of Party
COVID-19 coronavirus disease
DBM Department of Budget and Management
DO Development Objectives
DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
EQ evaluation question
FCR findings, conclusions, and recommendations
GPH Government of the Philippines
KII key informant interview
LGU local government unit
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
NRPS National Retail Payment System
PDP Philippine Development Plan
PPMI Philippine Payments Management, Inc.
PSP payment service providers
USAID United States Agency for International Development 

USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 1
E-PESO ACTIVITY BACKGROUND
TABLE 1. ACTIVITY INFORMATION
Activity Name E-PESO
Implementing Partner Chemonics International
Cooperative Agreement number AID-492-C-15-0001
Total Estimated Cost (TEC) $20.9 million
Life of Activity March 18, 2015 – February 17, 2021
Active Geographic Regions Philippines
Mission Development Objective (DO) CDCS 2013-2019 DO 1: Broad-based and Inclusive Growth Accelerated and Sustained 
Mission Development Objective (DO)
CDCS 2020-2024
DO 2: Inclusive, Market-Driven Growth Expanded
In 2015, a study by the Better than Cash Alliance estimated that 99 percent of payment transactions in 
the Philippines were conducted through cash.1 There is a vast potential for the shift to electronic 
payments, which has been recognized to provide a wide range of benefits towards promoting 
economic growth. Benefits include: (a) driving financial inclusion and economic empowerment, 
particularly among women and youths; (b) improving social protection and humanitarian response 
systems; (c) enabling more efficient and productive health, agriculture, energy, and other sectors; (d) 
improving governance, including increased transparency, reduced corruption; and (e) increasing 
economic growth and market-level development.2 Further, the United Nations recognized the 
transformative power of digital financial inclusion,3 supporting 13 out of the 17 Sustainable 
Development Goals.4
1 Better than Cash Alliance. 2015. Country Diagnostic: Philippines.
2 Mission Critical: Enabling Digital Payments for Development - A USAID Opportunity Brief
3 The Consultative Group to Assist the Poor or CGAP defined ‘Digital financial inclusion’ as digital access to and use of formal 
financial services by excluded and underserved populations.
4 A UN compendium on digital financial inclusion presented evidence on how digital financial inclusion can support SDG 
targets for goals 1-11, 16 and 17.)
2 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
The E-PESO activity aimed to support the Philippines' shift from a cash-intensive to a cash-lite 
economy by developing an efficient, transparent, and inclusive e-payment ecosystem. This shift to 
electronic payments is expected to contribute to broad-based economic growth, supporting the US￾Philippines Partnership for Growth objectives. The E-PESO activity was also aligned with government 
priorities— the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011-2016 dedicated one chapter for a resilient 
and inclusive financial system.
Figure 1 presents the E-PESO results framework. It explains the cause-effect relationships among 
inputs, sub-purposes, and the overall goal. The underlying development hypothesis was: 
“By promoting the rapid, widespread shift from cash to e-payments usage, E-PESO will 
support the Philippines to reach a tipping point of e-payment adoption that will represent a 
critical mass to become a self-sustaining e-payment ecosystem.”
Figure 1: E-PESO Results Framework
The overall goal was to have an efficient, transparent, and inclusive retail e-payment system 
contributing to broad-based growth. This goal was measured by the number and share of e-payment 
users and the number of financial products, services, or applications designed/enhanced to meet the 
needs of low-income clients. Annex A lists the E-PESO indicators in the Statement of Work (SOW).
Overall Goal:
Efficient, Transparent, and Inclusive Retail E-Payment System Contributes to Broad-Based Growth
Sub-Purpose 1:
Rapid Adoption of
E-payments in Financial 
System
Sub-Purpose 2:
Infrastructure for
E-payments Expanded
Sub-Purpose 3:
Enabling Environment
for E-payments Improved
Cross-cutting Sub-Purpose 4:
Build eMoney Ecosystem by Expanding to All Regions of the Cities Development Initiative (CDI)
Promote Global Knowledge Sharing on E-payments
Input:
Enabling environment
Input:
Digital infrastructure
Input:
Transaction drivers
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 3
E-PESO's purpose was for the scale of e-payment usage to reach a tipping point, measured by the 
share of e-payments accounting for retail payment transactions and the number of active e-payment 
users. The four activity sub-purposes/components are described below.5
During its implementation, E-PESO encountered a funding constraint. Only 60 percent of its contract 
ceiling became available. This resulted in the E-PESO activity not meeting all its objectives. Initially, 
there were efforts to downgrade the targets but these were eventually not allowed in the hopes that 
more funds would be available later.6
SUB-PURPOSE 1: RAPID ADOPTION OF E-PAYMENTS IN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM
This component involved support towards the digitization of large-scale payment streams in public 
and private sectors. E-PESO provided technical assistance to the Government of the Philippines’ 
(GPH) agencies for improving services delivery and fiscal management through the use of e-payments 
in various transactions. E-PESO also worked to bring the benefits of digital payments to targeted 
businesses, such as those from the fast-moving consumer goods industry that have large retail 
payment flows.
SUB-PURPOSE 2: INFRASTRUCTURE FOR E-PAYMENTS EXPANDED
This component involved support towards the expansion and effective management of e-payment 
infrastructure. The E-PESO activity supported the establishment of digital payment services that 
utilize existing infrastructure under the National Retail Payment System (NRPS)7 policy framework of 
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). These payment services include interoperable digital bills 
payment services, interoperable cash-in/cash-out agent networks, and merchant payments. The 
activity helped the industry set up these services and worked with government and private 
institutional users to pilot and adopt these services.
SUB-PURPOSE 3: ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR E-PAYMENTS IMPROVED
To improve the enabling environment for e-payment usage, E-PESO supported the BSP in establishing 
and implementing an interoperable NRPS. E-PESO provided technical assistance and training to BSP 
5 In the absence of access to the Project Appraisal Document, descriptions of the sub-purposes are based from the 
completion report.
6 Discussed during the 20 May 2021 consultation meeting with AOR on E-PESO and PRM as part of the preparation of the SOW 
on the evaluation of E-PESO.
7 Launched in December 2015, the NRPS is a policy and regulatory framework whereby the BSP provides regulatory oversight 
fundamentally in the form of policy direction to the payment service providers. The framework requires interoperability 
among the PSPs by creating multilateral arrangements which are referred to as automated clearing houses (ACHs). These 
ACHs provide detailed rules for clearing and settlement. (BSP Digital Payments Transformation Roadmap 2020-2023)
4 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
to promote digital security, consumer protection and confidence, financial inclusion, and e-payment 
stability within the broader payment system. 
SUB-PURPOSE 4: GAPS IN BROADER E-PAYMENT ECOSYSTEM ADDRESSED
The E-PESO activity identified and addressed supply and demand constraints to broader e-payment 
adoption. The activity supported the expansion of e-payment ecosystems, focusing on cities identified 
under USAID’s Cities Development Initiative (CDI)8
. 
8 The CDI is a USAID-supported project which aims to strengthen the economic competitiveness and resilience of cities 
outside of Metro Manila. Under CDI, the USAID provides a range of technical assistance depending on the most urgent needs 
of the city.
5 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS
EVALUATION PURPOSE 
After completing the E-PESO activity in February 2021, USAID/Philippines commissioned this ex-post
performance evaluation to gain information on E-PESO’s results and the sustainability of those 
results. The evaluation will identify the factors that contributed to E-PESO’s results and document the 
lessons arising from implementation. The lessons learned in this evaluation will be useful in the 
implementation phase of the next project (Supporting the Policy Enabling Environment for 
Development or SPEED) in terms of accountability and adaptive learning. Further, this evaluation may 
inform related development interventions in the future.9
As the last year of E-PESO’s implementation was characterized by government-imposed lockdowns 
and community quarantines due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, the evaluation will 
also study how the pandemic affected E-PESO’s implementation as well as the shift to a digital 
payment agenda. The evaluation also will explore issues related to digital financial inclusion. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This evaluation focuses on the following three evaluation criteria: (a) relevance, (b) effectiveness, and 
(c) sustainability. Table 2 presents the corresponding evaluation questions (EQ). The main evaluation 
questions (i.e., EQs 1-3) are based on the Task Order.10 Specific queries and sub-questions were 
further developed to answer particular aspects of the evaluation criteria. These evaluation questions 
will guide the structure of the evaluation tools and the processing and analysis of data. 
9 Discussed during the May 20, 2021 consultation meeting as part of the preparation of the Scope of Work (SOW) on the 
evaluation of E-PESO. The meeting was attended by the AOR of E-PESO and the PRM.
10 Based on the task order, the original evaluation question for relevance was ‘In what ways did E-PESO contribute to 
addressing the goal of an efficient, transparent, and inclusive retail e-payment system that contributes to broad-based 
growth?‘ This was rephrased to emphasize alignment with the Philippine Development Plan based on conversations with the 
E-PESO and Evaluation Task Order CORs.
6 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 2. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS
RELEVANCE
EQ1: In what ways does E-PESO support the country's national development goals and the USAID's country 
cooperation strategy objectives?
1.1 In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the priorities of 
the Philippine Development Plan?
1.1.1 In what ways did E-PESO contribute to the priorities 
of the previous Philippine Development Plan?
1.1.2 In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the 
priorities of the current Philippine Development Plan?
1.2 In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the strategies 
indicated in USAID's CDCS?
1.2.1 In what ways has E-PESO contributed to USAID’s 
previous country strategy for the Philippines?
1.2.2 In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the current 
USAID country strategy for the Philippines?
1.3 In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the needs of 
participating LGUs?
1.4 How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the shift to the 
digital payment agenda? 
1.4.1 How did the COVID-19 pandemic bring about or 
highlight concerns related to the shift to digital 
payments? 
EFFECTIVENESS
EQ2: Did E-PESO achieve the four sub-purposes of developing a lasting and inclusive economic infrastructure and set 
the stage for new financial products to enter the market? What are the possible reasons for the successes and the 
failures?
2.1 In what ways did the implementation of E-PESO support 
the rapid adoption of e-payments in the financial system 
(sub-purpose 1)?
2.1.1 What are the factors contributing to the successes?
2.1.2 What are the factors contributing to the challenges?
2.2 In what ways did the implementation of E-PESO support 
the expansion of infrastructure for e-payments (sub-purpose 
2)?
2.2.1 What are the factors contributing to the successes?
2.2.2 What are the factors contributing to the challenges?
2.3 In what ways did the implementation of E-PESO support 
the improvement of the enabling environment for e￾payments (sub-purpose 3)?
2.3.1 What are the factors contributing to the successes?
2.3.2 What are the factors contributing to the challenges?
2.4 In what ways did E-PESO implementation help address 
gaps in broader e-payment ecosystems (sub-purpose 4)?
2.4.1 What are the factors contributing to the successes?
2.4.2 What are the factors contributing to the challenges?
2.5 What are the financial products, services, or applications 
developed under E-PESO?
2.5.1 How effective are these financial products, services, 
or applications in meeting the needs of low-income 
clients?
2.6.1 Had the pandemic not happened, what would have 
been the effect in terms of meeting the E-PESO targets?
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 7
TABLE 2. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS
2.6 What was the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 
effectiveness of E-PESO?
SUSTAINABILITY
EQ3: What evidence supports the likelihood that the benefits of the E-PESO will extend past the activity’s period of 
performance, and what considerations should future similar activities take into account?
3.1 What evidence supports the likelihood that the benefits of 
E-PESO will extend after completion?
3.1.1 Are policies in place to support the shift to digital 
payment agenda?
3.1.2 Are institutional capacities adequate to continue 
the shift to digital payment agenda?
3.1.3 What were the exit strategies developed for E￾PESO?
3.1.4 Which exit strategies worked and why?
3.1.5 What are the new government targets?
3.1.6 What is the likelihood that the new targets will be 
met?
3.2 What considerations should future similar activities take 
into account?
3.2.1 What remains to be the advantage/s of using cash 
over e-payments?
3.2.2 What are the incentives to encourage the adoption 
of e-payments further?
3.2.3 What are the remaining factors that are hindering 
the adoption of e-payments?
3.2.4 What other work is needed to support the shift to 
digital payment agenda further?
3.2.5 What else should be done to ensure that 
disadvantaged Filipinos do not get left behind in a digital 
financial system? 
8 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
METHODS
The evaluation will use a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data 
analysis to answer the EQs. It will include a review of project-related documents, a review of 
secondary data, and key informant interviews (KIIs). This section describes the data collection, data 
sources, and data analysis methods. Annex B provides the Evaluation Design Matrix summarizing the 
methodology used to answer each EQ. 
REVIEW OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS
The evaluation will review available E-PESO activity documents acquired from USAID, activity and 
official sources such as USAID Philippines, GPH, and E-PESO websites. Documents will include USAID’s 
country strategy documents, national and local government plans, government roadmaps, E-PESO 
Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL plans), periodic monitoring reports, completion reports, 
and other activity technical reports. 
The evaluators will review documents to understand the activity design and contextualize how the E￾PESO activity supported the goals and objectives of both the government priorities and USAID’s 
country strategy for the Philippines. The evaluation will provide information about the 
implementation experience, including the factors that contributed to successes and failures under the 
activity. The evaluators will analyze performance data from the completion report to provide a 
quantitative understanding of the achievements upon activity completion. The evaluators will 
determine other data needed to assess the sustainability of the gains under the activity. 
Annex C provides an indicative list of project documents and secondary sources for review.
REVIEW OF SECONDARY SOURCES
The team will gather secondary data from official statistics from government and private sector 
reports. The team will also obtain secondary data on the activity indicators to compare recent data 
with completion reports and other available indicators related to e-payments. The evaluation will use 
comparative and trend analysis of descriptive statistics to analyze the quantitative data to understand 
the sustainability of gains from E-PESO. The evaluators will also compare trends before and during the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
The team will also use government and private sector institutions’ official reports, press releases, and 
media reports to understand recent shifts in the digital payment agenda. These developments will 
include current government initiatives and legislation and policy updates, essential in analyzing 
sustainability.
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
The team will conduct key informant interviews (KIIs) to obtain informed responses to the EQs from 
key stakeholders. The evaluation will purposively select the respondents from E-PESO’s major 
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 9
counterpart organizations, participating local government units (LGUs), implementing partners, and 
the private sector.11 Table 3 presents the proposed KII respondents. Additional respondents may be 
identified during data collection.
TABLE 3. PROPOSED KII RESPONDENTS
Raymond 
Estioko
Senior Director 
Payment System Oversight Department
BSP
Major Counterpart
Gemma 
Gabuya
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) 
National Program Manager and Director
DSWD
Major Counterpart
Clarito 
Alejandro 
Magsino
Functional Group Head
Internal Management Group
DBM
Major Counterpart
Blesila 
Lantayona
Undersecretary 
Regional Operations Group
DTI
Major Counterpart
11 Based on discussions during the in-briefing, the Department of Interior and Local Government was removed from the list of 
major counterpart organizations. The cities of Tagbilaran (from Visayas) and Zamboanga (from Mindanao) were also 
identified as LGUs to be interviewed.
10 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 3. PROPOSED KII RESPONDENTS
Lanee Cui￾David
Deputy Commissioner 
Information System
Bureau of Internal Revenue
Major Counterpart
Carmelita 
Araneta
General Manager
Philippine Payment Management Inc.
Major Counterpart
Mamerto 
"Mert" 
Tangonan
Chief of Party
Chemonics International
Implementing Partner
Melissa 
Cook
Former Deputy Chief of Party (2015-2017)
Chemonics International
Implementing Partner
John 
Geesnell 
Yap II
City Mayor
Tagbilaran City
Participating LGU
Maria 
Isabelle 
Climaco
City Mayor
Zamboanga City
Participating LGU
Marvin 
Santos
Enterprise Head for the Public Sector
PayMaya
Private Sector
Given the COVID-19 restrictions, the evaluation team will do the KIIs remotely using USAID-approved 
video conference tools, such as Google Meet and Zoom. After receiving consent from the key 
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 11
informant, the evaluation team will record the interviews and use the transcription for the qualitative 
analysis. Annex D presents the different guides for each of the KIIs. 
LIMITATIONS
The team expects to face some limitations and challenges in conducting this evaluation. These 
include recall bias and the availability of respondents.
The evaluation will be conducted about eight months after activity completion, and respondents may 
not provide complete answers to the KIIs. The evaluation team will reinforce the interviewee’s 
responses with information derived from related documents to address this issue.
To the extent possible, CLAimDev will complement its document-based research with a series of key 
informant interviews conducted remotely using video conference tools. It will be challenging to 
identify information sources as those formerly involved in the activity implementation may be difficult
to locate or hesitant to dedicate time. It is also a challenge to secure an appointment with key 
government officials occupied with COVID-19-related work. To mitigate this, the evaluation team will 
start the KIIs as soon as possible to provide ample time for data collection.
12 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
EVALUATION PHASES AND ACTIVITIES
The evaluation will be done from October 1, 2021, to January 30, 2022. The work plan is divided into 
four phases described below. A detailed evaluation Gantt chart is in Annex F.
PHASE 1: INCEPTION REPORT
This phase includes inception and in-briefing meetings with USAID Philippines to seek initial guidance 
and direction. During this phase, the evaluation team will start with document collection and review, 
drafting of evaluation approach and methods, generation of approved respondents for the KIIs, 
preparation of evaluation tools and instruments, and the submission of the inception report. Phase 1 
concludes with the submission of the Inception Report on October 28 and Inception Report 
Presentation scheduled on November 5.
PHASE 2: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS/ INTERIM BRIEFING
The evaluation team will reach out to USAID-approved respondents for the online KIIs. With key 
informant affirmative consent, the evaluation team will record the interviews and use the meeting 
software conference function to generate a transcription of the recording. The evaluation team also 
will manually take notes during all interviews. Depending on the number and length of the interviews, 
the evaluation team may use NVivo or other qualitative software to analyze the key informant 
interview transcripts. Desk review of documents and other secondary sources will also continue. 
Gathered data will be organized consistent with the evaluation design matrix presented in Annex B
and triangulated. Preliminary findings will be presented in an interim briefing with USAID. This Phase 
will begin on or about November 5 and conclude with the Interim Briefing on or about December 15.
PHASE 3: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (FCR) WORKSHOP AND DRAFT REPORT
Key tasks under the third phase will involve data analysis and report writing. The evaluation team will 
also conduct an FCR workshop with USAID and other stakeholders to validate the draft report. The 
workshop will also facilitate the drafting of recommendations based on report findings and 
conclusions. The results of the workshop will serve as an essential input to the draft evaluation report.
This Phase will begin on or about December 15 and conclude on or about January 10, 2022.
PHASE 4: FINAL REPORT AND LEARNING EVENTS
Based on USAID's comments on the draft report, the evaluation team will finalize the report for 
submission by the end of January 2022. For wider dissemination of findings and lessons learned, two 
learning events will follow.
Table 4 presents the indicative timeline for the major deliverables to USAID. Annex E shows the 
detailed work plan in a Gantt chart.
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 13
Table 1: Major Deliverables
TABLE 4. MAJOR DELIVERABLES
KEY TASKS DATES DELIVERABLES TO USAID
Evaluation design October 28, 2021
November 5, 2021
• Inception Report
• Inception Report Presentation
Data collection December 15, 2021 • Interim Briefing
Data analysis and 
report drafting
January 5, 2022
January 10, 2022
• FCR Workshop
• Draft Report
Report finalization January 31, 2022 • Final Report
14 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
EVALUATION TEAM
The evaluation team consists of the Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting for Improved 
Development (CLAimDev)12 team and the external evaluation team.
The CLAimDev team provides oversight, quality control, and staff support. The team is composed of 
the following staff: (a) Chief of Party; (b) Senior Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Specialist, (c) 
Evaluation Manager; and (d) Travel and Meetings Coordinator. 
The external evaluation team is composed of a team leader and a research assistant. The team will be 
working under the supervision of CLAimDev’s Evaluation Principal Investigator and Chief of Party 
(COP). The members and their roles and responsibilities are as follows:
• Ms. Maria Lourdes Lopez will serve as the Lead Evaluator. She will oversee all aspects of the 
evaluation, including the design and the actual conduct of the evaluation. Ms. Lopez will 
ensure that the work plan is implemented within the authorized budget and on schedule. She 
will be responsible for drafting and finalizing all assessment deliverables and supervising and 
working with the Research Assistant. 
• Mr. Joel Paulin Mendoza, as Research Assistant, will assist the Lead Evaluator in addressing 
the technical concerns of the assessment. He will provide support in formatting interview and 
survey questionnaires for remote data collection and maintaining organized evaluation files. 
He will assist in consolidating and coordinating the evaluation schedules with various 
stakeholders and offices to plan and carry out KIIs and secondary data gathering. 
12 CLAimDev is a Panagora Group lead activity, which supports USAID Philippines to identify and learn from other USAID 
activities that contribute to the Philippines’ capacity and commitment to self-reliance.
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 15
ANNEXES
ANNEX A. E-PESO INDICATORS
TABLE 1. E-PESO INDICATORS
INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION & 
UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT
REPORTING 
FREQUENCY DATA SOURCES & COLLECTION METHOD
Desired impact (DI): Efficient, Transparent, and Inclusive Retail e-payment System Contributing to Broad-based Growth
Indicator D1 1&2: 
Increased economic 
opportunity and 
financial inclusion 
deepened
a) Number of e- payment users
b) Percent of 
population 15 years 
and above who are e- payment users
Number 
(Cumulative)
Percentage 
(Cumulative)
Annual Data source: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas 
Financial Inclusion Dashboard (FID); World Bank 
Findex 2018.
Data is the total of active e-money wallets, prepaid cards linked to e-money, ATM debit cards, and credit cards. The latest available data 
is for Quarter 4 of 2019.
Indicator DI 3: Transparency and efficiency of the retail payment system improved (This indicator will be tracked under Outcome Indicator 3.1 – Financial regulation refined to manage the growth of e- payments.)
Indicator DI 4: More 
predictable and 
reliable financial 
tools for the poor
Number of financial 
products, services, or 
applications that are 
designed/ enhanced 
to meet the needs of 
low-income clients
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Financial products, tools, and services were 
designed to meet the needs of beneficiaries of 
the DSWD’s Social Amelioration Program and 
Conditional Cash Transfer Program. (DSWD financial literacy tool and distribution of 
ATM/debit cards, ReliefAgad self-registration web application for Social Amelioration Program 
(SAP) beneficiaries, and digital disbursements of 
SAP subsidies to beneficiaries). 
Desired Purpose (DP): Scope of e-payment usage reaches tipping point for scale
Indicator DP 1: E- payment accounting 
for at least 10% of all 
retail payment 
transactions
Percent of e-payments accounting for retail 
payment transactions
Percentage 
(Cumulative)
Annual (a) Year 1 Actual is carried over from baseline 
figures of e-payment users derived from registered e-money accounts since the first survey was conducted only in February to March 
2016. Year 2 was taken from page 17 of E-PESO’s 
Philippine Individual Payments Baseline Study (February-March 2016) using Definition 2 of E- payments. Years 1 and 2 targets derived from the 
BTCA Philippines Country Diagnostic Study (July 
2015) and the Philippine Individual Payments 
Baseline Survey (February-March 2016) that cover all types of e-card instruments (ATM/debit 
cards, credit cards, pre-paid cards, and e-money cards). For Indicator DP 1, results from E-PESO’s 
Institutional Payments Baseline Study (February- April 2017) indicate that 4.39% of all business 
16 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 1. E-PESO INDICATORS
INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION & 
UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT
REPORTING 
FREQUENCY DATA SOURCES & COLLECTION METHOD
payment transactions were done using e- payment methods. 
The State of Digital Payments in the Philippines 
report estimates the share of digital payments to 
be 10% by volume and 20% by value in 2018. The 
study, undertaken by the Better than Cash 
Alliance (BTCA), seeks to highlight examples of the shift from cash to digital payments by 
governments, companies, and international 
organizations. The baseline figure for Year 1 
(1.03%) was lifted from the findings of the first 
BTCA diagnostic, published in 2015.
Indicator DP 2: 
Growth in number of 
active e-payment 
users to reach scale
Number of e-payment 
users
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual The data source is the BSP’s Financial Inclusion 
Dashboard. The latest available data set is for 
Quarter 4 of 2019.
Data reported is active users for e-wallets only, as the numbers reported for ATM cards, prepaid 
cards linked to e-money, and credit cards do not indicate the number of active users. Data from e- wallet providers suggest a much higher number, 
with GCASH alone reporting 26 million active 
users.
SUB-PURPOSE 1: RAPID ADOPTION OF E-PAYMENTS IN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM
Desired Output 1: Rapid Adoptions of E-payments in Financial Systems
Indicator DO 1.1: 
Adoption of new e- payment services as 
collections/ 
disbursement option in five (5) national 
GPH agencies
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual E-PESO assisted five (5) national government 
agencies to enable digital collection and 
disbursements. The high volume and value of 
supplies and disbursements processed by these 
agencies maximized the effect of interventions in 
achieving wholesale adoption of e-payments by the government and the transacting public 
(individuals and businesses). 
E-PESO assisted the Bureau of Internal Revenue 
in expanding e-payment collection options (online via DBP’s Internet Payment Gateway), 
LandBank’s Link.Biz portal, Unionbank online 
portal, and mobile via PayMaya and GCASH). 
E-PESO assisted the National Meat Inspection 
Services (NMIS) in making online payments for 
permits available. 
E-PESO worked with the Department of Trade 
and Industry to integrate the Business Name 
Registration System with online and mobile 
payment services. 
With USAID/E-PESO assistance, the Social Security System (SSS) implemented mandatory 
online transactions and checkless 
disbursements, providing members, employers, 
pensioners, and beneficiaries/claimants with 
faster, safer, more convenient, and economical 
means to register, submit their loan and benefit 
applications, and receive their loan proceeds 
and cash benefits. 
E-PESO worked with the Department of Social 
Welfare and Development (DSWD) to disburse 
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 17
TABLE 1. E-PESO INDICATORS
INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION & 
UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT
REPORTING 
FREQUENCY DATA SOURCES & COLLECTION METHOD
the second tranche of the Social Amelioration 
Program benefits via digital wallets and bank 
accounts and develop and roll out the web- based registration app, ReliefAgad, facilitating 
beneficiary registration.
Indicator DO 1.2: 
Adoption of m- money and e- payments in all cities 
of PFG CDI and other 
cities/ municipalities
Number of CDIs (& 
other cities/ 
municipalities) that 
introduced or 
enhanced m-money & 
e-payment options
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual USAID/E-PESO provided research, advisory services, partnerships facilitation, and project management assistance to eleven (11)25 partner 
local government units (LGU) to expand their e- payment ecosystems. Consistent with the 
ecosystem approach, E-PESO also engaged with the private sector and local financial 
stakeholders in these areas, including electronic 
money issuers, e-payment service providers, industry associations, third-party aggregators, banks, and other financial institutions to 
encourage collections and disbursements via 
electronic channels.
Indicator DO 1.3: 
New e-payment implementation and 
adoption by 300 
(small, medium, and 
large) businesses
Number of businesses 
introducing or 
enhancing e-payment options as a result of 
E-PESO support
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual E-PESO exceeded the LOP target (300 small businesses) more than four-fold by working with PPMI to encourage PPMI/PESONet ACH members 
to shift corporate clients to e-payments. The number of businesses is the aggregate total of 
enterprise clients of some PESONet ACH 
Members utilizing PESONet.
Indicator DO 1.4: 
Over 16,000 people 
trained (via 
consumer education) 
on the uses of e- payments and m- money services for 
improved household 
financial 
management
Number of people 
trained (via consumer 
education) on the uses 
of e-payments
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual USAID/E-PESO will be reporting only 75% of the 16,000 LOP target, as the training for the DSWD’s 
financial literacy program supporting the 
disbursement of conditional cash transfer 
benefits to transactional accounts will 
commence in February 2021.
SUB-PURPOSE 2: INFRASTRUCTURE FOR E-PAYMENTS EXPANDED
Desired Outcome 2: Infrastructure for E-payments Expanded
Indicator DO 2.1: 
Growth of front-end 
e-payment 
infrastructure 
expanded
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Definition of front-end infrastructure is any user interface or device needed by individual users to 
conduct e-payment transactions and any computer system, software application, and/or 
18 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 1. E-PESO INDICATORS
INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION & 
UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT
REPORTING 
FREQUENCY DATA SOURCES & COLLECTION METHOD
Number of institutions 
supported by E-PESO 
to improve and/or expand other front- end infrastructure
device used by an institution or individual user 
to complete e-payment transactions.
Indicator DO 2.2: 
Back-end 
infrastructure 
strengthened
Number of institutions 
supported by E-PESO 
to improve and/or 
expand their back-end 
infrastructure
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Definition for back-end infrastructure is any 
system at the back-office operation of an institution required to allow and process e- payment transactions coming from the front-end 
infrastructure and any system from financial 
institutions connected to switch operators 
appointed by the automated clearing house 75 | USAID/E-PESO PROJECT Final Report (January 2021) participants used to process and settle e- payment transactions.
Indicator DO 2.3: E- payment 
infrastructure gaps 
identified
Number of gap 
analysis reports at 
industry or ecosystem 
level
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Gap analysis reports are studies done to assess 
demand, supply, or infrastructure gaps within an 
entire industry or e-payments ecosystem at a regional or national scale. This does not apply to 
gap analysis reports done at the firm or 
institutional level during a partner engagement. 
Reports include: an evaluation of the e- payments Landscape, the Philippine Individual 
Payments Baseline Survey, Philippine Agent 
Network Study, Gap analysis Report on the 
Evaluation of Existing BSP Digital Security Policy Areas Vis-à-vis Recommended Leading Standards on Digital Security Policies, Philippine 
Institutional E-payments Baseline Survey, and the Agent cash-in/cash-out network concept 
note
SUB-PURPOSE 3: ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR E-PAYMENTS IMPROVED
Desired Outcome 3: Enabling Environment for E-payments Improved
Indicator DO 3.1: 
Financial regulation 
refined to manage 
the growth of e- payments
a) No. of circulars, 
regulations, and/or 
local ordinances 
refined or clarified to 
support e-payment growth
b) No. of public- private dialogues to 
support strengthening 
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Indicator 3.1 looks at the laws, circulars, 
regulations, and ordinances enacted to support 
e-payment growth. Often, there are public- private dialogues supporting efforts to introduce such rules and regulations.
Data reported are 
dialogues/roundtables/consultation meetings 
with various stakeholders, including regulators, 
businesses and/or financial institutions.
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 19
TABLE 1. E-PESO INDICATORS
INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION & 
UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT
REPORTING 
FREQUENCY DATA SOURCES & COLLECTION METHOD
e-payment 
environment
Indicator DO 3.2: 
Increased 
competition among 
m-money and e- payment platforms
Number of policies 
removed or added to 
reduce barriers and 
encourage 
competition
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Increased competition among m -money and e- payment platforms is a contextual indicator. In 
collaboration with the BSP, this refers to the 
number of policies removed or added to reduce 
barriers and encourage competition in e- payments.
Indicator DO 3.3: 
Interoperability in 
the national payment 
system achieved
Number (Index) Annual Interoperability in the national payment system 
achieved is an indicator based on qualitative 
research. Indicator 3.3 tracks milestones in the 
development of the NRPS as measured through 
five levels: 
1) Theoretically interoperable.
2) Technically interoperable.
3) Functionally interoperable.
4) Interconnected; and 
5) Effectively interconnected, as explained by the 
Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI). 
By Year 4, interoperability scores shall be 
disaggregated by use case to track various e - payment modes. With the issuance of BSP 
Circular No. 980 – specifically Subsec. X1205.5/41205Q.5/4705S./4705P.5/4805N.5a. 
stating, “(1) BSFIs shall make electronic 
payments available in all its delivery channels 
when applicable; (2) BSFIs shall enable its clients 
to move/receive funds to/from an account with 
other BSFIs, or, at a minimum, receive funds. 
Movement of funds between BSFIs shall be 
carried out through participation in an ACH” – interoperability of the various payment streams 
is assured. The ACH clearing rules detail the 
terms of the interoperability
20 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 1. E-PESO INDICATORS
INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION & 
UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT
REPORTING 
FREQUENCY DATA SOURCES & COLLECTION METHOD
Indicator DO 3.4: 
Increased consumer 
awareness and trust 
in e-payments
a) % of the population 
15 years old and over 
aware of e-payments
b) % of the population 
15 years old and over 
that trust the e- payment system
Number 
(Percentage)
Annual Year 1 figures are derived from the Philippine 
Individual Payments Baseline Survey covering all 
e-card instruments (ATM/debit cards, credit 
cards, pre-paid cards, and e-money cards). The payments study asked direct questions on awareness and trust to randomly selected 
individually paying decision-makers across the 
Philippines. 
Indicator 3.4 (increased consumer awareness 
and trust in e-payments) shows only annual targets since the method to track awareness and 
trust in e -payments is through surveys conducted by E -PESO or BSP. BSP’s 2017 and 
2019 Financial Inclusion Survey (FIS) presented 
data on the percentage of survey respondents 
that do not trust electric platforms (15% of 
respondents) rather than the percentage of respondents that trust e-payment systems. Similarly, the survey reported the % of 
respondents who are not aware (40%) of 
electronic platforms rather than the percentage 
of those aware. The BTCA State of Digital 
Payments in the Philippines (December 2019) references BSP’s 2017 FIS.
Indicator DO 3.5: 
Security measures in 
e-payments 
strengthened
Number of guidelines 
developed and forums 
held that promote 
awareness on digital 
security best practices 
or consumer 
protection
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Indicators 3.5 and 3.6 refer to milestones on 
guidelines, fora, and articles of a cross-cutting nature revolving around digital security, 
consumer protection, and knowledge sharing of 
best practices. Activities related to these 
indicators seek to inform and support regulators, industry players, and the public on the latest e - payments trends. Y2 and Y 3 activities for 
Indicator 3.5 were consumer education 
campaigns designed and organized by E -PESO 
and hosted by LGUs or their private partners.
Indicator DO 3.6: 
Global knowledge- sharing of e- payments promoted
a) No. of articles 
promoting e- payments
b) No. of global 
knowledge-sharing events that highlight 
the Philippines e- payment 
environment/ players
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Various articles promoting e-payments.
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 21
TABLE 1. E-PESO INDICATORS
INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION & 
UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT
REPORTING 
FREQUENCY DATA SOURCES & COLLECTION METHOD
STANDARD INDICATORS
2.2.3-5 Number of 
sub-national entities 
receiving USG 
assistance that 
improves their 
performance
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual This indicator is like Indicator 1.2, which tracks 
CDIs/other cities and municipalities and receives 
E-PESO assistance. Targets are derived from the 
same set as Indicator 1.2: Adoption of m-money and e-payments in all cities of PFG CDI and other cities/municipalities. Please refer to the note on 
Indicator 1.2 for this indicator.
GNDR-2 Percentage of female 
participants in USG- assisted programs 
designed to increase 
access to productive 
economic resources 
(assets, credit, 
income, or 
employment)
Number 
(Percentage)
Annual This assumes a 1:1 ratio of females trained for 
every male. This is based on the Philippine Individual Payments Baseline Survey, where 
there is an equal ratio of males/females in the 
sample population. Generally, the broader 
Philippine population also has a sex ratio of 102 
males for 100 females. 
Source: 
http://www.pcw.gov.ph/statistics/201405/popul ation-families-and-household-statistics, 
accessed May 18, 2016.
PPP3 Number of 
organizations (for 
and not-for-profit, and government) 
that have applied 
new technologies 
and/or management 
practices due to USG- supported Public- Private Partnerships 
(PPPs) 
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Targets are derived from the same set as 
Indicators 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, where the number of 
institutions that have applied new technologies 
and/or management practices due to E-PESO- supported Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) is identified. 
EG.4.2-1 Total 
number of clients 
benefitting from 
financial services 
provided through 
USG-assisted 
financial 
intermediaries, 
including financial 
institutions or actors
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual These are derived from the number of people trained (via consumer education) on the uses of 
e-payments.
EG.4.2-2 Number of 
financial 
intermediaries 
serving poor 
households and 
microenterprises 
supported by USG 
assistance
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual Direct count of financial intermediaries including 
banks, microfinance institutions, and 
cooperatives (Land Bank, GCash, PayMaya, 
Dungganon Rural Bank).
EG.4.2-4 Number of 
days of USG-funded 
training provided to 
support 
microenterprises 
development
Number
(Cumulative)
Annual
22 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 1. E-PESO INDICATORS
INDICATOR
DESCRIPTION & 
UNIT OF 
MEASUREMENT
REPORTING 
FREQUENCY DATA SOURCES & COLLECTION METHOD
EG.5-3 Number of 
microenterprises 
supported by USG 
assistance
Number 
(Cumulative)
Annual
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 23
ANNEX B: EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX
The following table provides a summary of the evaluation questions, data, and data analysis approach used for this evaluation:
TABLE 1. EVALUATION DESIGN
EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE(S) DATA COLLECTION METHOD DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
RELEVANCE
EQ1: In what ways does E-PESO support the country's national development goals and the USAID's country cooperation strategy objectives?
1.1 In what ways has E-PESO 
contributed to the priorities of 
the Philippine Development 
Plan during appraisal and this 
evaluation?
1.1.1 In what ways has E-PESO 
contributed to the priorities of the 
Philippine Development Plan 
during the appraisal?
- Philippine Development Plan 
(previous)
- government roadmaps 
(previous)
- Desk review - Content analysis
1.1.2 In what ways has E-PESO 
contributed to the priorities of the 
current Philippine Development 
Plan?
- Philippine Development Plan 
(current)
- government roadmaps 
(current)
1.2 In what ways has E-PESO 
contributed to the strategies 
indicated in USAID's CDCS 
during appraisal and during this 
evaluation?
1.2.1 In what ways has E-PESO 
contributed to USAID country 
strategy for the Philippines during 
the appraisal?
- USAID PH country planning 
documents (previous)
- Desk review - Content analysis
1.2.2 In what ways has E-PESO 
contributed to the current USAID 
country strategy for the 
Philippines?
- USAID PH country planning 
documents (current)
1.3 In what ways has E-PESO 
contributed to the needs of 
participating LGUs?
- local development plans
- KII reports - Desk review - KII -Content Analysis
24 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 1. EVALUATION DESIGN
EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE(S) DATA COLLECTION METHOD DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
1.4 How did the COVID-19 
pandemic affect the shift to the 
digital payment agenda? 
1.4.1 1.4.1 How did the COVID-19 
pandemic bring about or highlight 
concerns related to the shift to 
digital payment?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
EFFECTIVENESS
EQ2: Did E-PESO achieve the four sub-purposes of developing a lasting and inclusive economic infrastructure and set the stage for new financial products to enter the 
market? What are the possible reasons for the successes and the failures?
2.1 In what ways did the 
implementation of E-PESO 
support the rapid adoption of e￾payments in the financial system 
(sub-purpose 1)?
2.1.1 What are the factors 
contributing to the successes? - project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
- Desk review
- KII
- Content analysis
- Descriptive statistics 2.1.2 What are the factors 
contributing to the challenges? - project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
2.2 In what ways did the 
implementation of E-PESO 
support the expansion of 
infrastructure for e-payments 
(sub-purpose 2)?
2.2.1 What are the factors 
contributing to the successes?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
- Desk review
- KII
- Content analysis
- Descriptive statistics 2.2.2 What are the factors 
contributing to the challenges? - project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
2.3 In what ways did the 
implementation of E-PESO 
support the improvement of the 
enabling environment for e￾payments (sub-purpose 3)?
2.3.1 What are the factors 
contributing to the successes? - project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
- Desk review - KII
- Content analysis - Descriptive statistics
2.3.2 What are the factors 
contributing to the challenges?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 25
TABLE 1. EVALUATION DESIGN
EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE(S) DATA COLLECTION METHOD DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
2.4 In what ways did the 
implementation of E-PESO help 
address gaps in broader e￾payment ecosystems (sub￾purpose 4)?
2.4.1 What are the factors 
contributing to the successes?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
- Desk review
- KII
- Content analysis
- Descriptive statistics 2.4.2 What are the factors 
contributing to the challenges?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
2.5 What are the financial 
products, services, or 
applications developed under E￾PESO?
2.5.1 How effective are these 
financial products, services, or 
applications in meeting the needs 
of low-income clients?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports - Desk review
- KII
- Content analysis
- Descriptive statistics
2.6 What was the effect of the 
COVID-19 pandemic on the 
effectiveness of E-PESO?
2.6.1 Had the pandemic not 
happened, what would have been 
the effect in terms of meeting the 
E-PESO targets?
- KII reports
- KII - Content analysis
SUSTAINABILITY
EQ3: What evidence supports the likelihood that the benefits of the E-PESO will extend past the activity’s period of performance, and what considerations should future 
similar activities take into account?
3.1 What are the pieces of 
evidence supporting the 
likelihood that the benefits of E￾PESO will extend after 
completion?
3.1.1 Are policies in place to 
support the shift to digital 
payment agenda?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
- Desk review
- KII - Content analysis 3.1.2 Are institutional capacities 
adequate to continue the shift to 
digital payment agenda?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
3.1.3 What were the exit strategies 
developed for E-PESO?
- project documents
- KII reports
26 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 1. EVALUATION DESIGN
EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE(S) DATA COLLECTION METHOD DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
3.1.4 Which exit strategies worked 
and why?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
- Desk review
- KII 3.1.5 What are the new government - Content analysis
targets?
- secondary sources
- KII reports
3.1.6 What is the likelihood that the 
new targets will be met?
- secondary sources
- KII reports
3.2 What considerations should 
future similar activities take into 
account?
3.2.1 What remains to be the 
advantage/s of using cash over e￾payments?
- secondary sources
- KII reports
- Desk review
- KII - Content analysis
3.2.2 What are the incentives to 
further encourage the adoption of 
e-payments?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
3.2.3 What are the remaining 
factors that are hindering the 
adoption of e-payments?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
- Desk review
- KII - Content analysis
3.2.4 What other works are needed 
to support the shift to digital 
payment agenda further?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
3.2.5 What else should be done to 
ensure that disadvantaged 
Filipinos don’t get left behind?
- project documents
- secondary sources
- KII reports
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 27
ANNEX C: LIST OF DOCUMENTS 
Project Documents
1. USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2019-2024
2. USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2013-2019
3. E-PESO Final Report
4. E-PESO Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (September 8, 2020)
5. E-PESO 2nd Annual Report (October 2015 – September 2016)
6. E-PESO 3rd Annual Report (October 2016 – September 2017)
7. E-PESO End of Contractor Report on Shared Cash Agent Network
8. E-PESO Final Consultant Report on Continuing Revenue Regulation Review and Pan-European 
Public Procurement Online Business Case/ Implementation Plan Formulation
9. E-PESO Contractor’s Completion Report on the Implementation of the National Survey, E-PESO 
research notes, and partnership building
10. E-PESO Short-term Consultant Report on the Development of E-payments Module
11. E-PESO Component 1 STTC Activity Report
12. E-PESO Fact Sheet
13. Better than Cash Alliance Reports 2019
14. Better than Cash Alliance Reports 2021
List of documents to be requested:
1. Project Appraisal Document 
2. E-PESO Original MEL Plan
3. E-PESO Annual and Quarterly Reports (other than those already available)
4. E-PESO Contractor’s Completion Report (other than those already available)
5. E-PESO Technical Reports and Studies (other than those already available)
Other Documents
1. Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016
2. Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022
3. BSP Digital Payments Transformation Roadmap 2020-2023
4. BSP 2019 Financial Inclusion Survey Report 
5. Mission Critical: Enabling Digital Payments for Development – A USAID Opportunity Brief
6. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. 2021. Bridging the digital infrastructure gap: 
Policy options for connecting Filipinos 
7. UNSGSA Igniting SDG Progress through Digital Financial Inclusion 
News articles and Videos
1. Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Great Divide.
28 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
2. Business World Insights: Enabling LGUs in the New Normal through Digital Payments 
Acceptance.
3. Business World Insights: Creating Digital Ecosystems to Jumpstart Local Economies.
ANNEX D: KII GUIDES
ANNEX D.1: KII GUIDE FOR MAJOR COUNTERPARTS
Introduction Hello, my name is Maria Lourdes Lopez, and I am an external evaluator consultant for Panagora 
Group. I am joined by Mr. Joel Mendoza, who is also an external consultant for Panagora Group.
Purpose USAID asked the Panagora Group to conduct an ex-post evaluation of the E-PESO Activity. 
As you may know, the E-PESO is a USAID-supported activity that was implemented from March 18, 
2015, to February 17, 2021. The E-PESO activity aimed to support the Philippines’ shift from a cash￾intensive to a cash-lite economy by developing an efficient, transparent, and inclusive e-payment 
ecosystem. The E-PESO has four main components, which include: (a) Rapid Adoption of E￾payments in Financial System; (b) Infrastructure for E-payments Expanded; Enabling Environment 
for E-Payments Improved; (d) Gaps in Broader e-Payment Ecosystem Addressed
The evaluation aims to assess the gains and the sustainability of those gains from the E-PESO 
activity. It will also help ensure that future development efforts use the valuable experiences and 
insights from the implementation of the E-PESO. 
We are meeting with you because of your familiarity with E-PESO implementation and your 
involvement in the shift to the digital payments agenda. Because our goal is to learn from both the 
positive and negative aspects of E-PESO, we ask that you be as honest as possible in your 
responses. If you wish that some or all of your comments be anonymous, please let us know, and 
we will ensure that your name and identifying characteristics will not be associated with those 
comments.
Interview Process The interview should take us about 30-45 minutes.
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 29
Consent Before we start with introductions and interview questions, we are required to ask for your 
consent.
- You have the right not to participate. This is voluntary.
- You have the right to stop at any point.
- If there is anything you do not understand, please ask me to clarify.
- You have the right to decline to answer any question.
- The information you provide is only for our evaluation, and your responses will be kept in 
the strictest confidentiality.
Do we have your consent for an interview?
Date : ______________
Participant Name : ______________
Organization : ______________
Location/Time : ______________
Gender of Respondent : ______________
SECTION 1 – BACKGROUND
1. What role or roles did you play in the implementation of the E-PESO activity? [The following 
are possible prompts]
• Role in the adoption of e-payments in the financial system (sub-purpose 1)
• Role in the expansion of infrastructure for e-payments (sub-purpose 2)
• Role in the improvement of the enabling environment for e-payments (sub-purpose 3)
• Role in addressing gaps in broader e-payment ecosystems (sub-purpose 4)
30 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
SECTION 2 – RELEVANCE
2. Based on your opinion, In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the priorities of the Philippine 
Development Plan during appraisal and during the evaluation? (1.1.1, 1.1.2)
3. Based on your opinion, In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the strategies indicated in 
USAID's CDCS during appraisal and during the evaluation? (1.2.1, 1.2.2)
4. In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the needs of participating LGUs? (1.3)
5. How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the shift to the digital payment agenda? (1.4)
6. How did the COVID-19 pandemic bring about or highlight concerns related to the shift to 
digital payment? (1.4.1)
SECTION 3 – EFFECTIVENESS
7. What do you think were the main accomplishments of E-PESO concerning the sub-purpose/s 
you were involved in? (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
8. What are the plausible reasons for these accomplishments? (2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1)
9. In what aspects did E-PESO fall short of expectations? (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
10. What are the plausible reasons for these shortfalls? (2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2, 2.4.2)
11. What are the financial products, services, or applications developed under E-PESO? (2.5)
12. How effective are these financial products, services, or applications in meeting the needs of 
low-income clients? (2.5.1)
13. Had the pandemic not happened, what would have been the effect in terms of meeting the E￾PESO targets? (2.6.1)
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 31
SECTION 4 – SUSTAINABILITY
14. What are the government policies in place to support the shift to the digital payment agenda? 
(3.1.1)
15. Are there existing government plans and roadmaps that you know? (3.1.1)
a. Concerning your organization? (3.1.1)
b. As a whole? [Including those outside your organization.] (3.1.1)
16. What capacities did E-PESO help build in your organization? (3.1.2)
17. Is your organization continuing the activities conducted under E-PESO? [If yes, go to Question 
18. If not, go to Question 21.] (3.1.2)
18. In what way is your organization continuing the activities conducted under E-PESO? (3.1.2)
19. Is there sufficient organizational capacity to implement said activities? (3.1.2)
20. Are there indicative results from said activities? (3.1.2)
21. Were there exit strategies developed for your organization under E-PESO? [If yes, go to 
Question 22. If not, go to Question 23.] (3.1.3)
22. Which exit strategies worked and why? (3.1.4)
23. About the shift to digital payments agenda, what are the new government targets in your 
organization? (3.1.5)
24. What is the likelihood that the new targets will be met? (3.1.6)
25. What remains to be the advantage/s of using cash over e-payments? (3.2.1)
26. What are the incentives to further encourage the shift to digital payment? 
a. To encourage consumers? Are there specific considerations for disadvantaged Filipinos? 
(3.2.2, 3.2.5)
b. To encourage businesses? (3.2.2)
32 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
c. To encourage government (national and local)? (3.2.2)
27. What do you think are the remaining challenges in the shift to the digital payment agenda? 
(3.2.3)
28. What are other works needed to support the shift to digital payment agenda further? 
a. Concerning your organization? (3.2.4)
b. As a whole? [Including those outside your organization.] (3.2.4)
29. What are other works needed to ensure that disadvantaged Filipinos don’t get left behind? 
(3.2.5)
SECTION 5 – CONCLUSION
30. If E-PESO could be redesigned or re-implemented, what changes would you propose in light of 
what you now know? [This would be the final question] (3.2)
31. Are there any other insights that you wish to share with us?
32. Are there any data that you think would be useful for this evaluation?
33. Is there anyone else who you think would have valuable insights for this evaluation? 
[If applicable, ask who to contact for identified data gaps possibly.]
[Thank the respondent for his/her time.]
[Tell the respondent that he/she is welcome to contact you to ask questions at a later date if they 
wish.]
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 33
ANNEX D.2: KII GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTING PARTNER
Introduction Hello, my name is Maria Lourdes Lopez, and I am an external evaluator consultant for Panagora 
Group. I am joined by Mr. Joel Mendoza, who is also an external consultant for Panagora Group.
Purpose USAID asked the Panagora Group to conduct an ex-post evaluation of the E-PESO Activity. 
As you may know, the E-PESO is a USAID-supported activity that was implemented from March 18, 
2015, to February 17, 2021. The E-PESO activity aimed to support the Philippines’ shift from a cash￾intensive to a cash-lite economy by developing an efficient, transparent, and inclusive e-payment 
ecosystem. The E-PESO has four main components, which include: (a) Rapid Adoption of E￾payments in Financial System; (b) Infrastructure for E-payments Expanded; Enabling Environment 
for E-Payments Improved; (d) Gaps in Broader e-Payment Ecosystem Addressed
The evaluation aims to assess the gains and the sustainability of those gains from the E-PESO 
activity. It will also help ensure that future development efforts use the valuable experiences and 
insights from the implementation of the E-PESO. 
We are meeting with you because of your familiarity with E-PESO implementation and your 
involvement in the shift to the digital payments agenda. Because our goal is to learn from both the 
positive and negative aspects of E-PESO, we ask that you be as honest as possible in your 
responses. If you wish that some or all of your comments be anonymous, please let us know, and 
we will ensure that your name and identifying characteristics will not be associated with those 
comments.
Interview Process The interview should take us about 30-45 minutes.
Consent Before we start with introductions and interview questions, we are required to ask for your 
consent.
- You have the right not to participate. This is voluntary.
- You have the right to stop at any point.
34 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
- If there is anything you do not understand, please ask me to clarify.
- You have the right to decline to answer any question.
- The information you provide is only for our evaluation, and your responses will be kept in 
the strictest confidentiality.
Do we have your consent for an interview?
Date : ______________
Participant Name : ______________
Organization : ______________
Location/Time : ______________
Gender of Respondent : ______________
SECTION 1 – BACKGROUND
1. What role or roles did you play in the implementation of the E-PESO activity? 
SECTION 2 – RELEVANCE
2. Based on your opinion, In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the priorities of the Philippine 
Development Plan during appraisal and during the evaluation? (1.1.1, 1.1.2)
3. Based on your opinion, In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the strategies indicated in 
USAID's CDCS during appraisal and during the evaluation? (1.2.1, 1.2.2)
4. In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the needs of participating LGUs? (1.3)
5. How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the shift to the digital payment agenda? (1.4)
6. How did the COVID-19 pandemic bring about or highlight concerns related to the shift to 
digital payment? (1.4.1)
SECTION 3 – EFFECTIVENESS
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 35
7. What do you think were the main accomplishments of E-PESO concerning the sub-purpose/s 
you were involved in? (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
8. What are the plausible reasons for these accomplishments? (2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1)
9. In what aspects did E-PESO fall short of expectations? (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
10. What are the plausible reasons for these shortfalls? (2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2, 2.4.2)
11. What are the financial products, services, or applications developed under E-PESO? (2.5)
12. How effective are these financial products, services, or applications in meeting the needs of 
low-income clients? (2.5.1)
13. Had the pandemic not happened, what would have been the effect in terms of meeting the E￾PESO targets? (2.6.1)
SECTION 4 – SUSTAINABILITY
14. What are the government policies in place to support the shift to the digital payment agenda? 
(3.1.1)
15. Are there existing government plans and roadmaps that you know? (3.1.1)
16. What capacities did E-PESO help build in your organization? (3.1.2)
17. Would you know if government agencies are continuing the activities conducted under E￾PESO? [If yes, go to Question 18. If not, go to Question 21.] (3.1.2)
18. In what way are these government agencies continuing the activities conducted under E￾PESO? (3.1.2)
19. Is there sufficient organizational capacity to implement said activities? (3.1.2)
20. Are there indicative results from said activities? (3.1.2)
36 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
21. Were there exit strategies developed for your organization under E-PESO? [If yes, go to 
Question 22. If not, go to Question 23.] (3.1.3)
22. Which exit strategies worked and why? (3.1.4)
23. About the shift to the digital payments agenda, would you know the new government targets? 
(3.1.5)
24. What is the likelihood that the new targets will be met? (3.1.6)
25. What remains to be the advantage/s of using cash over e-payments? (3.2.1)
26. What are the incentives to further encourage the shift to digital payment? 
d. To encourage consumers? Are there specific considerations for disadvantaged Filipinos? 
(3.2.2, 3.2.5)
e. To encourage businesses? (3.2.2)
f. To encourage government (national and local)? (3.2.2)
27. What do you think are the remaining challenges in the shift to the digital payment agenda? 
(3.2.3)
28. What are other works needed to support the shift to digital payment agenda further? 
29. What are other works needed to ensure that disadvantaged Filipinos don’t get left behind? 
(3.2.5)
SECTION 5 – CONCLUSION
30. If E-PESO could be redesigned or re-implemented, what changes would you propose in light of 
what you now know? [This would be the final question] (3.2)
31. Are there any other insights that you wish to share with us?
32. Are there any data that you think would be useful for this evaluation?
33. Is there anyone else who you think would have valuable insights for this evaluation? 
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 37
[If applicable, ask who to contact for identified data gaps possibly.]
[Thank the respondent for his/her time.]
[Tell the respondent that he/she is welcome to contact you to ask questions at a later date if they 
wish.]
38 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
ANNEX D.3: KII GUIDE FOR PARTICIPATING LGU
Introduction Hello, my name is Maria Lourdes Lopez, and I am an external evaluator consultant for Panagora 
Group. I am joined by Mr. Joel Mendoza, who is also an external consultant for Panagora Group.
Purpose USAID asked the Panagora Group to conduct an ex-post evaluation of the E-PESO Activity. 
As you may know, the E-PESO is a USAID-supported activity that was implemented from March 18, 
2015, to February 17, 2021. The E-PESO activity aimed to support the Philippines’ shift from a cash￾intensive to a cash-lite economy by developing an efficient, transparent, and inclusive e-payment 
ecosystem. The E-PESO has four main components, which include: (a) Rapid Adoption of E￾payments in Financial System; (b) Infrastructure for E-payments Expanded; Enabling Environment 
for E-Payments Improved; (d) Gaps in Broader e-Payment Ecosystem Addressed
The evaluation aims to assess the gains and the sustainability of those gains from the E-PESO 
activity. It will also help ensure that future development efforts use the valuable experiences and 
insights from the implementation of the E-PESO. 
We are meeting with you because of your familiarity with E-PESO implementation and your 
involvement in the shift to the digital payments agenda. Because our goal is to learn from both the 
positive and negative aspects of E-PESO, we ask that you be as honest as possible in your 
responses. If you wish that some or all of your comments be anonymous, please let us know, and 
we will ensure that your name and identifying characteristics will not be associated with those 
comments.
Interview Process The interview should take us about 30-45 minutes.
Consent Before we start with introductions and interview questions, we are required to ask for your 
consent.
- You have the right not to participate. This is voluntary.
- You have the right to stop at any point.
- If there is anything you do not understand, please ask me to clarify.
- You have the right to decline to answer any question.
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 39
- The information you provide is only for our evaluation, and your responses will be kept in 
the strictest confidentiality.
Do we have your consent for an interview?
Date : ______________
Participant Name : ______________
Organization : ______________
Location/Time : ______________
Gender of Respondent : ______________
SECTION 1 – BACKGROUND
1. What role or roles did you play in the implementation of the E-PESO activity? 
SECTION 2 – RELEVANCE
2. In what ways has E-PESO contributed to the needs of your city? (1.3)
3. How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the shift to the digital payment agenda? (1.4)
4. How did the COVID-19 pandemic bring about or highlight concerns related to the shift to 
digital payment? (1.4.1)
SECTION 3 – EFFECTIVENESS
5. What do you think were the main accomplishments of E-PESO concerning the sub-purpose/s 
you were involved in? (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
6. What are the plausible reasons for these accomplishments? (2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1)
7. In what aspects did E-PESO fall short of expectations? (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
8. What are the plausible reasons for these shortfalls? (2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2, 2.4.2)
40 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
9. What are the financial products, services, or applications developed under E-PESO? (2.5)
10. How effective are these financial products, services, or applications in meeting the needs of 
low-income clients? (2.5.1)
11. Had the pandemic not happened, what would have been the effect in terms of meeting the E￾PESO targets? (2.6.1)
SECTION 4 – SUSTAINABILITY
12. What are the government policies in place to support the shift to the digital payment agenda? 
(3.1.1)
13. Are there existing government plans and roadmaps that you know? (3.1.1)
a. Concerning your city? (3.1.1)
b. As a whole? [Including those outside your city?] (3.1.1)
14. What capacities did E-PESO help build in your city? (3.1.2)
15. Is your city continuing the activities conducted under E-PESO? [If yes, go to Question 18. If not, 
go to Question 21.] (3.1.2)
16. In what way is your city continuing the activities conducted under E-PESO? (3.1.2)
17. Is there sufficient organizational capacity to implement said activities? (3.1.2)
18. Are there indicative results from said activities? (3.1.2)
19. Were there exit strategies developed for your city under E-PESO? [If yes, go to Question 22. If 
not, go to Question 23.] (3.1.3)
20. Which exit strategies worked and why? (3.1.4)
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 41
21. About the shift to the digital payments agenda, what are the new government targets in your 
city? (3.1.5)
22. What is the likelihood that the new targets will be met? (3.1.6)
23. What remains to be the advantage/s of using cash over e-payments? (3.2.1)
24. What are the incentives to further encourage the shift to digital payment? 
g. To encourage consumers? Are there specific considerations for disadvantaged Filipinos? 
(3.2.2, 3.2.5)
h. To encourage businesses? (3.2.2)
i. To encourage government (national and local)? (3.2.2)
25. What do you think are the remaining challenges in the shift to the digital payment agenda? 
(3.2.3)
26. What are other works needed to support the shift to digital payment agenda further? 
a. Concerning your city? (3.2.4)
b. As a whole? [Including those outside your city.] (3.2.4)
27. What are other works needed to ensure that disadvantaged Filipinos don’t get left behind? 
(3.2.5)
SECTION 5 – CONCLUSION
28. If E-PESO could be redesigned or re-implemented, what changes would you propose in light of 
what you now know? [This would be the final question] (3.2)
29. Are there any other insights that you wish to share with us?
30. Are there any data that you think would be useful for this evaluation?
31. Is there anyone else who you think would have valuable insights for this evaluation? 
[If applicable, ask who to contact for identified data gaps possibly.]
42 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
[Thank the respondent for his/her time.]
[Tell the respondent that he/she is welcome to contact you to ask questions at a later date if they 
wish.]
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 43
ANNEX D.4: KII GUIDE FOR PRIVATE SECTOR
Introduction Hello, my name is Maria Lourdes Lopez, and I am an external evaluator consultant for Panagora 
Group. I am joined by Mr. Joel Mendoza, who is also an external consultant for Panagora Group.
Purpose USAID asked the Panagora Group to conduct an ex-post evaluation of the E-PESO Activity. 
As you may know, the E-PESO is a USAID-supported activity that was implemented from March 18, 
2015, to February 17, 2021. The E-PESO activity aimed to support the Philippines’ shift from a cash￾intensive to a cash-lite economy by developing an efficient, transparent, and inclusive e-payment 
ecosystem. The E-PESO has four main components, which include: (a) Rapid Adoption of E￾payments in Financial System; (b) Infrastructure for E-payments Expanded; Enabling Environment 
for E-Payments Improved; (d) Gaps in Broader e-Payment Ecosystem Addressed
The evaluation aims to assess the gains and the sustainability of those gains from the E-PESO 
activity. It will also help ensure that future development efforts use the valuable experiences and 
insights from the implementation of the E-PESO. 
We are meeting with you because of your familiarity with E-PESO implementation and your 
involvement in the shift to the digital payments agenda. Because our goal is to learn from both the 
positive and negative aspects of E-PESO, we ask that you be as honest as possible in your 
responses. If you wish that some or all of your comments be anonymous, please let us know, and 
we will ensure that your name and identifying characteristics will not be associated with those 
comments.
Interview Process The interview should take us about 30-45 minutes.
Consent Before we start with introductions and interview questions, we are required to ask for your 
consent.
- You have the right not to participate. This is voluntary.
- You have the right to stop at any point.
44 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
- If there is anything you do not understand, please ask me to clarify.
- You have the right to decline to answer any question.
- The information you provide is only for our evaluation, and your responses will be kept in 
the strictest confidentiality.
Do we have your consent for an interview?
Date : ______________
Participant Name : ______________
Organization : ______________
Location/Time : ______________
Gender of Respondent : ______________
SECTION 1 – BACKGROUND
1. Was your company’s participation in the implementation of the E-PESO activity? 
SECTION 2 – RELEVANCE
2. How relevant is the shift to digital payment agenda to your company objectives and goals? 
(1.1)
3. What made your company decide to participate in the activities of E-PESO? (1.1)
4. From your company’s experience, how did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the shift to the 
digital payment agenda? (1.4)
5. How did the COVID-19 pandemic bring about or highlight concerns related to the shift to 
digital payment? (1.4.1)
SECTION 3 – EFFECTIVENESS
6. What do you think were the main accomplishments brought about by your company’s 
participation in E-PESO? (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
7. What are the plausible reasons for these accomplishments? (2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1)
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 45
8. In what aspects did E-PESO fall short of expectations? (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
9. What are the plausible reasons for these shortfalls? (2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2, 2.4.2)
10. Are you aware of the financial products, services, or applications developed under E-PESO? [If 
yes, go to Question 11. If not, go to Question 13]
11. What are the products that you know? (2.5)
12. How effective are these financial products, services, or applications in meeting the needs of 
low-income clients? (2.5.1)
13. Had the pandemic not happened, what would have been the effect of meeting your 
company’s achievements related to the shift to the digital payment agenda? (2.6.1)
SECTION 4 – SUSTAINABILITY
14. Is your company continuing the activities conducted under E_PESO? [If yes, go to Question 15. 
If not, go to Question 18] (3.1.2)
15. In what way is your company continuing the activities conducted under E-PESO? (3.1.2)
16. Is there sufficient organizational capacity to implement said activities? (3.1.2)
17. Are there indicative results from said activities? (3.1.2)
18. Are there other initiatives that your company is doing to further the shift to the digital 
payment agenda? (3.1)
19. What remains to be the advantage/s of using cash over e-payments? (3.2.1)
20. What are the incentives to further encourage the shift to digital payment? 
j. To encourage consumers? Are there specific considerations for disadvantaged Filipinos? 
(3.2.2, 3.2.5)
k. To encourage businesses? (3.2.2)
l. To encourage government (national and local)? (3.2.2)
46 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
21. What do you think are the remaining challenges in the shift to the digital payment agenda, 
particularly for your company? (3.2.3)
22. What are other works needed to support the shift to digital payment agenda further? 
a. Concerning your company? (3.2.4)
b. As a whole? [Including those outside your company.] (3.2.4)
23. What are other works needed to ensure that disadvantaged Filipinos don’t get left behind? 
(3.2.5)
SECTION 5 – CONCLUSION
24. If E-PESO could be redesigned or re-implemented, what changes would you propose in light of 
what you now know? [This would be the final question] (3.2)
25. Are there any other insights that you wish to share with us?
26. Are there any data that you think would be useful for this evaluation?
27. Is there anyone else who you think would have valuable insights for this evaluation? 
[If applicable, ask who to contact for identified data gaps possibly.]
[Thank the respondent for his/her time.]
[Tell the respondent that he/she is welcome to contact you to ask questions at a later date if they 
wish.]
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 47
ANNEX E: KEY INFORMANTS (PLANNED)
TABLE 1. KEY INFORMANTS
Raymond 
Estioko
Senior Director 
Payment System Oversight Department
BSP
Major Counterpart
Gemma 
Gabuya
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) 
National Program Manager and Director
DSWD
Major Counterpart
Clarito 
Alejandro 
Magsino
Functional Group Head
Internal Management Group
DBM
Major Counterpart
Blesila 
Lantayon
a
Undersecretary 
Regional Operations Group
DTI
Major Counterpart
Lanee Cui￾David
Deputy Commissioner 
Information System
Bureau of Internal Revenue
Major Counterpart
Carmelita 
Araneta
General Manager
Philippine Payment Management Inc.
Major Counterpart
Mamerto 
"Mert" 
Tangonan
Chief of Party
Chemonics International
Implementing Partner
Melissa 
Cook
Former Deputy Chief of Party (2015-2017)
Chemonics International
Implementing Partner
John 
Geesnell 
Yap II
City Mayor
Tagbilaran City
Participating LGU
Maria 
Isabelle 
Climaco
City Mayor
Zamboanga City
Participating LGU
Marvin 
Santos
Enterprise Head for the Public Sector
PayMaya
Private Sector
TBD Private Sector
48 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
ANNEX F: WORK PLAN
TABLE 1. WORK PLAN
E-PESO EVALUATION SCHEDULE OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY
TASK START END 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 Inception Report
1.1 Review of materials/ tools development/ report 
writing 10/01/21 10/17/21
1.2 Kick-off Meeting 10/04/21 10/04/21
1.3 Submission to Panagora Activity Office (In 
briefing ppt) 10/11/21 10/11/21
1.4 In briefing 10/14/21 10/14/21
1.5 Submission to Panagora Activity Office 
(inception report) 10/18/21 10/18/21
1.6
Submission to Panagora Home Office (inception 
report) 10/22/21 10/22/21
1.7 Submission to USAID (inception report) 10/28/21 10/28/21
1.8 Inception report presentation 11/05/21 11/05/21
USAID.GOV USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 49
TABLE 1. WORK PLAN
E-PESO EVALUATION SCHEDULE OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY
2 Preliminary Findings/ Interim briefing
2.1 Data collection 10/18/21 11/19/21
2.1.1 Preparation of letters (endorsement from 
USAID) 10/18/21 10/22/21
2.1.2 Desk review 10/18/21 11/19/21
2.1.3 KIIs 11/03/21 11/19/21
2.2 Data processing and analysis 11/04/21 11/23/21
2.3 Submission to Panagora Activity Office (ppt) 11/24/21 11/24/21
2.4 Submission to Panagora Home Office (ppt) 12/01/21 12/01/21
2.5 Interim briefing 12/15/21 12/15/21
2.6 Submission of interim briefing documentation 12/17/21 12/17/21
3 Draft Report/ FCR workshop
3.1 Submission to Panagora Activity Office 
(narrative and ppt) 12/20/21 12/20/21
3.2 Submission to Panagora Home Office (narrative 
and ppt) 12/27/21 12/27/21
50 | USAID/PH E-PESO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV
TABLE 1. WORK PLAN
E-PESO EVALUATION SCHEDULE OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY
3.3 FCR Workshop (early January) 1/05/22 1/05/22
3.4 Submission to Panagora Activity Office (draft 
report) 12/27/22 12/27/22
3.5 Submission to Panagora Home Office (draft 
report) 1/03/22 1/03/22
3.6 Submission to USAID (draft report) 1/10/22 1/10/22
4 Final Report/ Learning Events
4.1 Draft revisions based on USAID comments 1/17/22 1/19/22
4.2 Submission to Panagora Activity Office 1/20/22 1/20/22
4.3 Submission to Panagora Home Office 1/24/22 1/24/22
4.4 Submission to USAID 1/31/22 1/31/22
4.5 Learning events (two events) - -