Marivic Y. Codinera

Evaluation of the Family Development Program in Cebu PHILIPPINES Inter Aide – StePS SACMI – FORGE – VINE - SAMA by Ching Li Ye Lead Evaluator With the assistance of Grace Casano John Voltaire Ferrolino Marivic Codinera Prof. Felisa U. Etemadi Consultant June 2009 FDP Evaluation Team Prof. Felisa U. Etemadi Consultant Ching Li Ye Lead Evaluator Grace Casano John Voltaire Ferrolino Researchers Marivic Codinera Research Assistant Acronyms ALS APP BC BHC BHW CW ECCD EU FDP FDW FGD FORGE HV KI LGU NGO OP PTS SACMI SAMA STEPS TB TOR VINE - Alternative Learning System Analysis of Professional Practice Birth Certificate Barangay Health Center Baranngay Health Workers Creative Workshop Early Childhood Care Development European Union Family Development Program Family Development Worker Focus Group Discussion Fellowship for Organizing Endeavors Home Visit Key Informant Local Government Unit Non Government Organization Oras sa Pamilya Parent Teen Session Share a Child Movement Inc. Stop Abuse Minors Association Inc Suporta Teknika para sa Pag-unlad sa Pamilya Tuberculosis Terms of Refernce Venue for Initiative and Genuine Development Foundation, Inc. This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The content of this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. Table of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objectives 2.0 METHODOLOGY 1 2 3 2.1 Document Study 3 2.2 Ocular Visit 4 2.3 Data Collection 4 2.3.1 Assessment matrix 4 2.3.2 Key Informant Interviews 5 2.3.3 9 Focus Group Discussion 2.4 Data Processing and Analysis 10 2.5 Debriefing 10 2.6 Validation 10 2.7 Limitations 11 3.0 AREAS OF COVERAGE AND THE FDP TEAM 11 3.1 Areas of Coverage 11 3.2 FDP Team 12 Page 4.0 STAGES OF FDP IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES PER STAGE 13 4.1 Stages of FDP Implementation 13 4.2 Main Objectives by Stages/Activities 14 5.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 17 5.1 Output vs Target 17 5.2 Outcome 26 5.2.1 Opening an Area 26 5.2.2. Family Development Proper or Family Case Management 32 5.2.2.1 Identification and Enrolment of Families 32 5.2..2.2 Follow up of Families 34 5..2.2.3 Case-Filing & Recording 34 5.2.2.3 34 Debriefing. 5.2.3 Capacity Building for Implementors 5.2.3.1 Analysis of Professional Practice (APP) 5.2.4. Family Development Services/Activities 39 39 43 5.2.4.1 Home Visit 43 5.2.4.2 Oras sa Pamilya 54 5.2.4.3. Pulongs 58 5.2.4.4 .Creative Workshop (0-6 years old) 65 5.2.4..5 Playgroup (3-7 years) 71 Page 5.2.5 Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community 5.3 5.4 75 5.2.5.1 Phase-out 75 5.2.6 Outcome by Issue 80 Assessment of Strategy or Approach 95 5.3.1 Home Visit 95 5.3.2 Creative Workshop 96 5.3.3 Pulong 97 5.3.4 Oras sa Pamilya 97 5.3.5 FDP as a Strategy 100 5.3.6 FDP Teams 111 Impact 112 5.4.1 Sustaining Progress 113 5.4.2 Palpable signs of direct impact 114 5.4.3 Signs of unintended Impact 111 5.4.4 Signs of Indirect Impact 115 5.4.5 Potential Impact (Indirect) 115 5.4.6 Potential Impact (FDP Families) 116 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 121 Page Appendices Appendix A. MOA and Terms of Reference for FDP Assessment. Appendix B. Interview Guide for Implementing NGOs (FORGE, SACMI, SAMA, VINE) Appendix C. Interview Guide for STEPS Appendix D. Interview Guide (FDP Families) Appendix E. Interview Guide (Non-FDP Families) Appendix F. Questionnaire on the Oras sa Pamilya (FDWs) Appendix G. Questionnaire on the Oras sa Pamilya (FDP and Non-FDP Families) Appendix H. FGD Guide for Implementing NGOs (FORGE, SACMI, SAMA, VINE) Appendix I. FGD Guide (STEPS) Appendix J. FGD Attendance Sheet (5 NGOs) Appendix K. Validation Attendance Sheet (June 3 and June 8) Appendix L. FDP Logical Framework Appendix M. EU Monitoring Report. Appendix N. Home Visit Form 1 and 2 This report reflects only the views of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of Inter-Aide and STePS and the consortium NGOs. List of Tables Page Table 1 Number of Key Informants by NGOs 7 Table 1.1 Number of Key Informants by FDP and Non-FDP 8 Table 2. Number of FGD participants by NGOs 9 Table 3. Number of Staff by NGO 12 Table 4. NGO Performance: Output vs Target 25 Table 5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Opening an Area 28 Table 6. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Proper or Family Case Management 36 Table 7. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Capacity Building Of Implementors 41 Table 8. Needs and Issues Identified by the FDP Families During Home Visit and Actions Taken 45 Table 9.1. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development 50 Services/Activities (Home Visit) Table 9.2. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Oras sa Pamilya) 56 Table 9.3 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Pulongs) 60 Table 9.4. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Creative Workshop) 67 Table 9.5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Playgroup and Parent-Teen Session) 72 Table 10. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community 77 Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP 84 Table 12. Outcome by Issue based on FDP Families Perception 92 Table 13. NGO Perception of Impact 116 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Family Development Program is a development approach that aims to increase the autonomy and stability of the poor families by improving their capacities to solve problems. This entails building up the poor families’ confidence and encouraging them to think and act on their own. The program focuses on capacitating the poor families to access resources (i.e. health, education and family welfare services) within and outside the community, whether public or private. Greater demands for services coming directly from the poor families will hopefully challenge the public and private service providers to improve their efficiency and quality. All of these will eventually translate into poverty reduction as the poor families learn how solve problems, access resources and stand on their own. (Alexandra David, 2006) The main objective of the program is to “alleviate poverty in urban poor communities by supporting the sustainable improvement of the capacity and autonomy of the poorest families living in the most deprived urban areas and by promoting/improving access to health, education, family welfare services for all squatter areas’ inhabitants.” (A.David, 2006) The specific objectives of the program are (A.David, 2006): • To improve the self-confidence, awareness, and knowledge of poor families • To enable the families to identify their needs and develop their problem solving skills. • To enable the families to access services to respond to identified needs • To enable parents to meet their young children’s developmental needs • To enable children to fully develop their potentials The target beneficiaries are the poorest families living in the most deprived urban areas. These are the families which have difficulties in responding to their own needs. These are the families who have difficulties in planning and anticipating problems, often leaving things until the last minute when the situation has become critical before looking or asking for help. (David, 2006) The program has been implemented in Brazil, Madagascar, India and the Philippines. In Cebu, the program has been implemented since the early 90s by Bidlisiw, a local NGO in partnership with Inter Aide. Later, it was adopted by Share a Child Movement, Inc. (SACMI). 1 In 2006, a group of NGOs composed of the Fellowship for Organizing Endeavors (FORGE), the Share a Child Movement, Inc. (SACMI), the Stop Abuse Minors Association Inc. (SAMA) and the Venue for Initiative and Genuine Development Foundation, Inc. (VINE) came together and decided to adopt and implement the Family Development Program. Inter Aide, an international NGO based in France, collaborated with the 4 local NGOs for the implementation of the FDP program. Inter Aide drafted a project proposal in behalf of the consortium and submitted the proposal to the European Union (EU) for funding. With funding from the EU for three years, the consortium started implementing the program in January 2007 in selected barangays in Cebu City, Mandaue City and Lapulapu City. As project holder, Inter Aide acts as liaison and provides management supervision in the implementation of the project. Providing technical support to the consortium is the Suporta Teknika para sa Pag-unlad sa Pamilya (STePs), Inc. another local NGO. STePs provides orientation and training on the program to the implementing NGOs. It develops the activities as well as the tools to monitor the activities. With the exception of SACMI which has been implementing the approach since 2004 in partnership with Inter Aide and Steps (ENFANCE), the 3 other implementing NGOs are neophytes. As such, the 1st quarter of project implementation was occupied mostly with hiring of staff and staff development (orientations and trainings on the FDP approach). The project ends on December 2009 hence the need for a comprehensive review of the program. The external evaluation was part of the project proposal submitted by Inter Aide to EU. This evaluation is undertaken by an external and independent evaluator to determine outcome or impact; if any, of the project. 1.1 Objectives Based on the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the evaluation, the objectives of the evaluation are (please see Appendix A): • To find out the outcome of the project vis-à-vis targets • To assess the outcome or the impact of the project (i.e. changes in the lives of the beneficiaries) 2 • To suggest areas for improvement (redirection of thrust and/or strategy) The evaluation also aimed to look at the relevance of the tools and processes and suggest possible improvement. 2.0 METHODOLOGY The evaluation is primarily a descriptive qualitative study of the FDP program based on interviews with the FDP teams of the 4 implementing NGOs and the staff of STePs as, well as perceptions of the beneficiaries of the program especially the FDP families and the non-FDP families. Document study, key informant interviews (KIs), Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and observation were the methodologies used in gathering the data. Data were triangulated using quantitative and qualitative analysis, multiple methodologies and multiple perspectives. The outcome, relevance of strategy/approach and impact were arrived at using a comparative analysis of the FDP implementors and community’s perception. The evaluation is an evaluation of FDP as a whole and not by individual NGOs. This report reflects only the views of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of Inter-Aide and STePS and the consortium NGOs. 2.1 Document Study The following documents provide the necessary background readings on the program: • Alexandra David, Urban Programme: The Family Development Approach, July 2005, http://www.interaide.org/pratiques • Project proposal submitted to the EU, March 2006 • Log frame • Annual reports for 2007 and 2008 • Log frame prepared by Inter Aide, monthly as well as photo documentation • FORGE quarterly report 2007& 2008; FORGE annual reports 2007 & 2008 3 • 16 sample case folders from FORGE • SACMI quarterly report 2007; SACMI monthly report 2008; annual reports 2007 & 2008 • 16 sample case folders from SACMI • SAMA quarterly report 2007& 2008; SAMA annual reports 2007 & 2008 • 16 sample case folders from SAMA • VINE quarterly report 2007& 2008; VINE annual reports 2007 & 2008 • 16 sample case folders from VINE • Tools o Community Profile Form o Family Profile Form o Family Evaluation Form o Home Visit Form o Creative Workshop Form (Pre and Post; Observation Notes) o Playgroup Form (Pre and Post) o Parent-Teen Form (Pre and Post) o Referral Form 2.2 Ocular Visit The evaluation team visited the different FDP areas on May 11, 14, 18 and 21 to observe and get a feel of the community. Observations were incorporated in the findings. 2.3 Data Collection 2.3.1 Assessment matrix An assessment matrix was designed by the consultant, Prof. Felisa Etemadi. The assessment matrix was designed to draw out the outcome and impact of the project. The form was first filled up by the lead evaluator using inputs from the 2007 and 2008 reports submitted by the implementing NGOs, STePs, and Inter Aide per request of the evaluation team. The format and content were later refined using inputs and comments obtained during the key informant interviews. The form was also distributed to the different coordinators for additional inputs or 4 comments. Further refinements and more inputs were later added in the subsequent focus group discussion with the NGOs 2.3.2 Key Informant Interviews Key informant interviews were conducted among three categories: NGOs, FDP families and non FDP families. Four (4) protocols were developed by the consultant, Prof. Felisa Etemadi: one for the implementing NGOs, one for STePs, another for the FDP families and one for the non FDP families. An additional two protocols were later developed after discussion with Inter Aide representative focusing on the effectiveness of Oras sa Pamilya as a strategy. The structure of the questionnaire for the 4 implementing NGOs, and STePs are as follows (Please see Appendix B, C, D, E, F and G for copy of the protocols): Implementing NGOs • Objectives of FDP • Stages and sub-objectives per stage • Approached/Strategies Used • Targets per activity • Outputs • Effectiveness of Approaches/Strategies • Assessment of activity evaluation forms • Outcome • Improvement or changes in clients (conditions before and after) STePs • Objectives of FDP • Role of STePs in each stages of FDP implementation • Common problems encountered by the implementing NGOs that requires technical assistance/support; how the problems were addressed and the results 5 • Most difficult or challenging problems encountered by the implementing NGOs and actions taken • Review of the tools/ activity evaluation forms FDP Families • Expectations in joining the program • Issues /needs identified and prioritized during the initial home visits • Actions taken on these identified needs/problems (action plan) • Conditions before and after program intervention • Effectiveness of the program Non FDP families • Expectations in joining the program • Activities participated and services obtained • Learnings from the activities • Conditions before and after the program • Effectiveness of the program 2 additional protocols on Oras sa Pamilya Implementing NGOs (FDWs) • Reasons for establishing Oras sa Pamilya • Effectiveness of Oras sa Pamilya (is it functioning as intended) • Whether to continue OP or not FDP and Non FDP families • Awareness on the presence of OP in the area • Type of services available at the center • Reasons for going to the OP 6 • Effectiveness of OP • Making OP available to more clients A total of 30 key informants were interviewed from April 24 to April 30 from the 4 implementing NGOs and STePs. The breakdown is as follows: Table 1. Number of Key Informants by NGOs Executive Directors STePs 1 FORGE 1 Psychologist/ Coordinators/ Social Program Manager Workers 2 2 1 SACMI FDWs Total 5 1 4 7 1 4 5 SAMA 1 1 3 5 VIINE 1 1 6 8 Total 4 6 17 30 3 Note: The number of informants varied depending on availability. A meeting with the InterAide representative was held on May 7 to discuss the TOR and initial findings. The InterAide representative was given a copy of the 6 protocols and the initial outputs during the meeting. Initial outputs include: • KI interviews narrative report • Updated NGO accomplishment matrices; and • Family Profile (backgrounder for the upcoming interviews of beneficiaries). The evaluation team did not receive any feedback on the initial outputs. We proceeded with our work in order to follow schedules. A copy of the tentative schedule and draft TOR were furnished to InterAide and STEPS on April 8, 2009. Key informant interviews and not survey was the method agreed upon by the evaluation team and the consortium in getting the perception of the community (please refer to TOR). 7 The number of families was computed based on the limitation imposed on us by the timeframe for the evaluation and submission of the report. Considering the tight schedule, two weeks were allotted for the interviews of the community. With a target of 64 families (44 FDP and 20 nonFDP key informants, that means interview of 5 to 6 families per day. The number of families to be interviewed were arrived at taking into consideration travel time of field researchers, coordination with the FDWs as they are needed to guide the researchers to the homes of the respondents in terms of location. The researchers would also need time to establish rapport with the respondents. Based on the experience of the FDWs, it would take at least 4 visits to establish rapport with the families. Prior to the community interview, time was also spent in preparing a brief profile of the identified respondents based on the home visit reports and other files in the individual case folders in order to facilitate the succeeding interviews among the beneficiaries. It was made clear to the team, however, that these profiles were to be held in confidence and that the interviewers were to familiarize themselves with these beforehand. They were advised not to take these along when conducting the interviews. A total of 62 key informants, out of the 64 that was originally in the schedule were interviewed at the community level from May 11 to 23. Fifty (50) are FDPs and 12 are non-FDPs. Of the 50 families, 27 have been phased out. The two respondents (non-FDP) were not available during the interview. Efforts were made to replace them but to no avail. In fact, some of the original families identified by the NGOs at the beginning were replaced due to unavailability at the time of the interview. Table 1.1 Number of Key Informants by FDP and Non-FDP FDP Non FDP Total FORGE 12 3 15 SACMI 12 4 16 SAMA 10 3 13 VIINE 16 2 18 Total 50 12 62 8 2.3.3 Focus Group Discussion For the FGDs, two (2) FGD protocols were developed by the consultant: one for the implementing NGOs and the other for STePs. The FGD was conducted to validate the assessment matrix as well as to draw out additional inputs specifically on the impact of the project. The structure of the FGD guide are (Please see Appendix H and I): Implementing NGOs • Review on the objectives of the program • Review on the targets • Review on the outcome • Outcome vs objectives • Overall impact of the project • Clarification of some items/terms STePs • Clarification on tools • Clarification on policies Five (5) FGDs were conducted from May 7 to 9 and May 14 with a total of 38 participants. Table 2. Number of FGD participants by NGOs Executive Directors STePs 1 FORGE Psychologist/ Coordinators/ Program Social Manager Workers 1 2 1 SACMI FDWs Total 4 1 8 10 1 10 11 SAMA 1 1 3 5 VIINE 1 1 6 8 Total 3 6 27 38 2 9 STePs and Inter Aide were invited to all the FGDs so that their views could be heard. STePs attended the FGD validation intended for their organization (See Appendix J for FGD Attendance). 2.4 Data Processing and Analysis Data processing and analysis is undertaken at 4 levels: 2.4.1 Filling up the assessment matrix based on the reports submitted by the implementing NGOS. Refining the inputs of the matrix based on the results of the key informant interviews, comments from the coordinators of the implementing NGOs and FGD validation. 2.4.2 Collation and synthesis of the inputs of the key informant interviews based on the responses from the implementing NGOs, STePs and the community (FDP and non-FDP families) highlighting the trends and commonalities. 2.4.3 Collation and synthesis of the assessment matrix. 2.4.4 Analysis of the assessment matrix based on inputs from the implementing NGOs and the community (FDP and non FDP families) especially focusing on the conditions of the families/community before and after the program. 2.4.5 Review of FDP tools 2.5 Debriefing Regular debriefings and feed-backing were conducted by the evaluation team and the consultant to discuss developments and thresh out gaps. 2.6 Validation Evaluation findings were presented and validated on two occasions: • The first was on June 3, 2009 with 13 participants (1 InterAide representative, 3 executive directors, 1 program manager, 3 coordinators and 5 members of the evaluation team). 10 • The second one was conducted on June 8, 2009 with the FDP teams of the 4 implementing NGOs with a total of 31 participants. The Inter Aide representative and staff from STePs were invited for the 2nd validation so that the consortium could level off on some of the findings of the evaluation. But the Inter Aide Representative could not make it to the 2nd validation as she was indisposed and STePs had another activity scheduled (communication was coursed through the executive director of STePs). (Please see Appendix K for attendance during validation) 2.7 Limitations Due to the tight schedule, the consortium and the evaluation team agreed from the beginning that the evaluation focus should be on the implementation of the Family Development Program only. The governance and other aspects (e.g. management) were excluded in the evaluation due to time constraints. The evaluation did not take off as scheduled (1st week of April) because of the Holy Week. Evaluation started on April 20, 2009. The evaluation team started to do the groundwork even without a signed contract as yet. As the InterAide representative was on leave, the terms of the TOR were finalized upon her return. By that time, evaluation was in full swing because of schedules and deadlines. 3.0 AREAS OF COVERAGE AND THE FDP TEAM 3.1 Areas of Coverage The following are FDP areas: a. FORGE o Ermita, Cebu City o Guizo and Tipolo, Mandaue City 11 b. SACMI o Mambaling and Lorega, Cebu City o Subangdaku, Mandaue City c. SAMA o Lorega (phased out) & Carreta, Cebu City d. VINE 3.2 o Soong, Lapulapu City (phased out) o Labogon, Mandaue City FDP Team The FDP team is usually composed of 3 Family Development Workers (FDWs) and 1 coordinator per area. The coordinator is a social worker. One of the FDWs acting as an Early Childhood Care and Development Specialist and receives special training for the purpose. Below is the breakdown of the number of staff by Implementing NGOs. Table 3. Number of Staff by NGO Executive Director Program/ Manager Coordinator FDWs ECCD/ FDW FORGE* 1 1 1 6 3 Technical Staff for Governance 1 3 SACMI 1 1 6 3 1 SAMA 1 1 2 1 4 VINE 1 1 5 1 7 Total 4 4 19 8 1 PPT 2 Total 15 11 3 41 Note: FORGE has a special set up because aside from the main FDP approach, they have a governance component. Hence, the need for the 3 technical staff and program manager. Only SACMI and FORGE are implementing the Piso Pisong Tigom (PPT). PPT is not a part of the main FDP approach. 12 STePs which provides technical support and assistance to the implementing NGOs have 7 staff: • 1 executive director • 2 social workers • 2 psychologists • 1 educator • 1 administrative assistant • 1 Financial and admin officer 4.0 STAGES OF FDP IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES PER STAGE 4.1 Stages of FDP Implementation There are three main stages in FDP implementation: • Opening an area • Family development proper or family case management • Closing an area/exit from the community During the key informant interviews, the coordinators from the 4 implementing NGOs labeled the second stage of FDP implementation as family case management. However, the InterAide representative suggested changing the label to Family Development Proper as case management is just one component of the second stage of the program. When the study was validated again with the FDWs and the coordinators on June 8, 2009, the coordinators stood their ground and said that it should not be Family Development Proper because FDP proper started when they began opening the area (community profiling, family profiling, etc.) They said that the second stage is really more on family case management. The following are the capacity building activities for the implementors and the community: • Capacity Building of Implementors o FDP staff trainings o Analysis of Professional Practice (APP) 13 • FDP Services/Activities o Home visit o Oras sa Pamilya o Pulong o Creative Workshop o Playgroup o Parent-Teen Session o ECCD scholarship APP was first identified by the FDP coordinators and FDWs as part of the second stage which is case management The FDP coordinators and FDWs agreed with the comments of the Inter Aide representative but suggested that FDP staff trainings should be added in the activities as these are part of capacity building of implementors. The FDP teams also added Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) as part of FDP services/activities. 4.2 Main Objectives by Stages/Activities 4.2.1 Opening an Area includes ocular visit, courtesy call, community profiling, family profiling, and networking. The following are the main objectives in opening an area: • To identify whether area is FDP or not • To identify whether family is qualified or not • To inform, gain the support and work with the barangay LGUs towards providing assistance to the program beneficiaries • To inform, gain the support and work with the existing organizations in the area towards providing assistance to the program beneficiaries 14 4.2.2 Family Development Proper or Family Case Management includes identification of families, follow-up of families, case filing and recording and debriefing. 4.2.2.1 Identification of families • To enroll the qualified families to the program • To determine whether priority or light cases 4.2.2.2 Follow-up of families • To capacitate the family so that they may be able to identify and prioritize, and plan solutions to their problems on their own and be able to go by themselves to the needed services. 4.2.2.3 Case-Filing & Recording • To monitor and update the status of the families • To determine whether the objectives in the action plan have been met 4.2.3.4 Debriefing • To provide stress debriefing after home visits • To assess the activity (other activities) 4.2.3 Phase out • To assess the current status of the family whether they have attained objectives or not • To determine if there are significant changes in the families in terms of capacity and behavior change • To determine the interventions provided in response to identified needs and to determine if the intervention works (note: based on phone interview with 2 coordinators) 15 4.2.4 Capacity Building of Implementors 4.2.4.1 • FDP Staff Training To orient the FDWs and coordinators on FDP methodology, process and services • To build and enhance the skills of implementing FDP teams • To add to FDWs knowledge on specific topics or tools used in FDP implementation 4.2.4.2 • Conduct of Analysis of Professional Practice (APP) To serve as venue for FDWs to share their concerns on families especially difficult cases • To analyze the situations of families in order to understand their issues and provide appropriate intervention • To build the skills of the FDWs in problem analysis and resolution • To recommend to FDWs strategies on handling cases • To help the team to share their stress and/or feelings regarding the situations met on the field 4.2.5 FDP Services/Activities • Home Visit - to capacitate the family so that they may be able to identify and prioritize problems and plan solutions to their problems • Oras sa Pamilya (OP) - to provide information; to provide guidance and counseling; and to accommodate request for referrals and counseling from the community (FDP and non-FDP) • Pulong – to provide practical inputs on topics or common issues identified based on needs of the family/community; to discuss issues • Creative Workshop(0-6 years of age) - to improve/enhance parent-child relationship • Play Group (3-7 years) -to provide venue for development of five aspects (physical, mental, social, spiritual, emotional) of child development • Parent-Teen Session (implemented by 1 NGO only)- to improve parent-teen relations • ECCD – to promote pre-school education 16 5.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Output vs Target Logframe In terms of target, each NGO must enroll 82 families per area per cycle and for home visit each FDWs must follow-up 32 families. While there is a logframe, the evaluation team observed that the targets are very general and are inadequate to monitor actual output. Besides, some of the targets set in the log frame are not feasible considering the short period allotted for each family (6 months to 10 months at most). One target set in the log frame is on education i.e. enrolled elementary school children increased from 60% to 80%. But what if the enrolment of families started after school has opened and the phase out of families was conducted before another school term has started? It would affect the output. The short duration would also make it difficult to monitor if the child continued with schooling or not. “What if the child dropped out after school started,” asked one key informant. The program does have a phasing out process that includes a 6-months period of evaluation (“eval B” & “eval C”). The phasing out is spread on a 6-month period to provide some time, some distance to better assess the sustainability of the family’s progress. But while a phase out process has been designed to monitor the progress of families using Family Evaluation Form B & C, the design of the tool does not fully answer some of the targets set in the logframe. Going back to the example on education, the logframe talks about increased of enrolment of elementary from 60 to 80%. But the Family Evaluation Form A, B, and C (the same instrument is used for pre and post), only have one item on education and it is very general – whether all children of school age are in school from pre-school to secondary, more than half of children enrolled, less than half of the children enrolled, or no child enrolled. It did not specify how many children of pre-school age are attending daycare, how many children of school age are attending elementary, or how many were attending high school. The tool lumped all children of school age into one category which makes it difficult to answer the objectively verifiable indicators set in the logframe. The provision that “more than half of the children enrolled” is not specific enough. Does it refer to children in pre-school? or in elementary? or in 17 high school? In view of such generalities, the FDWs understand and or interpret these differently. For example, the logframe talks about immunization (increased in the number of immunized children from 40% to 75%). But the Family Evaluation Form speaks of health in general (whether health needs have been handled with savings, health needs met on time, health needs met but not on time, health needs not handled). With this type of provision, it is very difficult to assess how many children have been immunized. Does the log frame refer to full immunization? As one coordinator pointed out during the second validation, full immunization usually takes more than a year as vaccine shots have to be scheduled. Besides, there is the question of availability of vaccines at the barangay health centers. While the targets set in the logframe are discussed during phase out deliberation and included in the phase out report, the reporting was very general such as solved, partially solved, unsolved. What is meant by partially solved? The coordinators cited birth certificate as an example. If the families have been able to process the birth certificate but have not been able to claim then it is partially solved. But the counting or computation of the issues is by family. So if the computation is by family how would we be able to achieve the target set in the logframe (i.e. increased in the number of immunized children, increased in the number of children enrolled in elementary)? Target setting with the FDP teams During the key informant interviews, majority of the FDP Teams were confused when asked about targets per activity. All the FDWs however knew that each of them must follow-up 32 families simultaneously and that they must let the families set their own objectives regarding health, education, birth certificate, family relationship, etc. Only one NGO made reference to the logframe but the coordinator of the concerned NGO stated that she saw the logframe only on the second year of implementation. No wonder the respondents from the other NGOs had difficulty in answering questions about the targets. It must be noted though that while Inter Aide prepared the logframe and the proposal, the said logframe and proposal were given to the executive directors of the 4 implementing NGOs for 18 comments and modification before it was submitted to the EU. The executive directors gave inputs and suggestions which were reflected in the final proposal and logframe. On the validation of the study on June 8, some of the FDP teams again reaffirmed that they had not seen a logframe. One coordinator confirmed that the logframe was distributed among the executive directors. Maybe a communication gap occurred somewhere during the initial stage of implementation as the consortium were occupied with the nitty gritty of seeing the project take off such as selection of target areas wherein STePs and Inter Aide actively participated. At the same time, the implementing NGOs were occupied with hiring the staff with STePs busily training the newly hired FDWs. One of the points raised during the June 8 validation by one coordinator was that the implementing NGOs have no input in making the logframe. The coordinator lamented that it would have been great if there could have been a joint planning and assessment by the consortium. Adding to the confusion on target was the fact that previous Inter Aide representative was quoted as saying that “the program does not set targets” (Note: this is according to some FDWs and coordinators). Inter Aide clarified that this must have been a misunderstanding as “Inter Aide always sets and measures targets, and at the same time, Inter Aide, together with its partners, focuses on quality. Rather than follow targets blindly the program chose to focus on quality as initial targets proved to be over-ambitious.” . Since the objectively verifiable indicators mentioned in the logframe were very general and since the target per stage/activity was not clear, the evaluation team asked the FDP teams to think on hindsight what they think was the target per stage/activity. They have been implementing the program for two years and have a good idea of what the target should be. The targets mentioned below are those culled out during the key informant interviews of the FDP teams. Cross reference was made to some of the targets in the logframe. • Identification and enrolment of families. When asked about targets, all of the key informants have difficulty in answering except that each FDP team is supposed to target 80 to 82 families per area per cycle or 30 to 32 families per FDW. The FDWs are also aware that the families must set their own objectives regarding health, education, birth certificate, family relationship, etc. A total of 1109 families were enrolled by the 4 implementing NGOs in- which is 69% of the target set in the logframe. 19 Factors affecting output (enrolment): o Flexibility in the period for phase out- supposed to be 6 to 8 months but there are families which were not phased out until after the 10th month. Based on the case folders, there were 3 or 4 cases were the period exceeds a year. The FDP teams agreed during validation that there are cases which really exceed more than a year as the families have problems which still need intervention from the program. o Different dynamics of the families. Each family has each own pace. There are families which have ‘lighter problems’ and can be phased out on the target set by the program. But there are families with ‘heavier problems’ which needs more time. There are also families which are difficult to process (i.e. it took time to build trust and for the family to open up). FDWs observed that some families would open up only on the 5th month or near the period of phase out. o First quarter of the first year (2007) of implementation was taken up for hiring of staff and trainings. o Other activities like additional trainings in 2008 and holidays (Christmas, Holy Week) affect the target. o Environmental conditions such as high tide, floods, heavy rains, etc. o Disasters like fire, demolitions, flooding Due to these extenuating factors, actual implementation is only 10 months a year according to the InterAide representative (June 3 validation). A coordinator observed during the June 8 validation that actual implementation is really one cycle a year as two months are taken up for preparatory activities like opening an area and staff training. The factors mentioned above have also been discussed in Inter Aide’s FDP annual reports 2007 and 2008. The target set in the logframe (1,600 families) while commendable is very ambitious. It failed to take into account the factors mentioned above (as explained in Inter Aide FDP annual reports 2007 & 2008). Caseload per FDW : In terms of caseload, FDWs are supposed to maintain 30 to 32 cases per area per cycle. But the caseload per FDW increased when the team started phasing out families. This is because 20 the FDWs are supposed to visit the phased out families once a month for the next three months during the transition period and at the same time are expected to enroll new families to replace the phase out ones. Therefore, aside from maintaining the 32 families caseload, they are expected to continue handling the phase out families which means that at anytime they could have as much as 50 families to visit per cycle. The case load was okay when the program was just starting. But now that the program has started phasing out families intensively and the cycle of enrolment and phasing out has overlapped, the FDWs have begun to feel the additional load. • Case-Filing & Recording. An average of 81.5 % of case folders of all enrolled families are updated each week or 8 case folders a week per area which is below the target of 100% or 10 case folders a week. Factors affecting output (Case Filing & Recording): o Additional workload during phase out. Phase out families must be visited and their case folders continued to be updated • Conduct of Analysis of Professional Practice (APP). The target is to conduct 1 session per week per area or 48 APPs annually per area. For-, the 4 implementing NGOs conducted an average of 36 sessions/year/area which is below the target of 48 APPs per year per area. Factors affecting output (APP): o FDW trainings(e.g. stress management) and other activities o Cancellations o Coordination meeting with consortium partner NGOs o Holidays Regarding cancellations of APP, STePs noted that sometimes the NGOs would cancel a scheduled APP because there are no cases to discuss. But the FDP teams during the June 8 validation clarified that the cancellations were done because they have scheduled other activities like creative workshop and pulongs. The FDP teams said that they have not cancelled an APP even once because there were no cases to discuss. 21 • Debriefing. There are two types of debriefing: debriefing after each home visit and debriefing after activities like pulong, creative workshop, playgroup, etc. Regular debriefings were conducted after each activity to assess the flow of the activity and to look for areas for improvement. For home visits, the debriefing is regular (after every HV) to give the FDWs time to decompress and unburden themselves. • Home Visits. An FDP Team composed of three FDWs is assigned per area. Each FDW is supposed to handle 32 families. Of the 32 families, five are priority families while the remaining 27 are light. For priority families, FDWs are supposed to visit them once a week while light families are supposed to be visited twice a month. The target is five to six cases/FDW/day for 4 days a week. Home visits usually last a minimum of 30 minutes or a maximum of 45 minutes per visit.. o At the time of enrolment. The target of 5 to 6 families is met since it is a policy of the program to assign 32 families per FDW upon opening an area. o At the time of phase out. According to the FDWs, they have to visit a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 9 families a day during phase out. This is because of overlapping cycle of enrolment and phase out. FDWs noted that they are expected to enroll new families once they have phased out some of their cases to be able to reach the quota of 32. But at the same time, they are also required to visit the phase out families once a month for 3 months during the transition period. The InterAide representative opined that it would be impossible for the FDWs to have a caseload of 7-9 families a day considering the number of working hours. The FDWs however strongly maintained during the June 8 validation that there are really times when their caseload reached 8-9 families during phase out as they have to visit the phase out families. The IA rep said that other scheduled activities sometimes interfere with HV (e.g. Mondays- team meetings; 1 morning a week is for APP, 1 half day a week for creative workshop, 1 half day for pulong or playgroup or training etc.). This leaves 2 days for home visit as an average. The IA rep suggested to the FDWs that they be on the field half day on Monday but most of them seemed to prefer to follow their usual 22 ways. The FDWs said that they do go to the field on Monday afternoons not to conduct home visits but to update case folders. o Eighty percent (80%) of the families are visited : Factors affecting output (HV): o Families availability o Environmental conditions such as high tide, heavy rains, flooding, etc. o Conduct of other activities like pulongs, etc. (as ECCD specialists carry out playgroups and parent-child workshops, they only follow up 15 families) • .Oras sa Pamilya. One counseling center has been opened per area. In the logframe, the target was set at >700 families. But in the perception of the FDWs, OP has no target since it is freeflowing, i.e. families are supposed to visit the counselling center by their own volition when the need arises. In any case, a total of 1,313 families visited the counseling center for a total of 1484 visits in-. This means that the output more than exceeded the target set in the logframe by 87%. Of those who visited 40% are non FDP families (588). 47 phase out families also visited the OP after they have graduated from the program. • Pulongs are supposed to be conducted once a month per area or 12 pulongs a year per area with a minimum of 10 to 15 participants per pulong. A total of 140 pulongs with a total of 1,852 participants were conducted for-. This is below the target of 240 pulongs (120/year) or 2,400 participants for the two year period. One NGO managed to exceed the target by conducting 17 and 22 pulongs respectively in 2007 and 2008 with a total of 378 participants. Factors affecting output (Pulong): o Availability of speakers o Availability of venue o Availability of participants An NGO mentioned that they wanted to conduct pulongs on topics like child development and husband and wife relationship, but they were curtailed by the lack of module. They wanted to go ahead and had developed a module for the activities mentioned, but were firmly informed during a consortium meeting that modules must go through STePs. Since 23 they could not conduct pulongs on those topics mentioned, they proceeded to conduct pulongs on other topics instead. Inter Aide representative and STePs however clarified that the implementing NGOs have the freedom to formulate their own modules. The case mentioned above is isolated and has happened to only one NGO. The IA rep stated that this has been discussed already with the NGO concern. • Creative Workshop. The key informants initially stated that the target is 2 batches or 12 sessions every 3 months or a total of 48 sessions per year. The InterAide representative however said that she recommended that the NGOs conduct 1 batch or 6 sessions at a time (1 batch every 3 months) and once the 6 sessions are finished that the NGOs start with another batch. According to the IA Rep, some NGOs however chose to conduct 2 batches every 3 months because a lot of families wanted to join. The FDWs clarified that the target of 1 batch or 6 sessions every 3 months took effect only when the playgroup started to be implemented last year. Before that the target was really 2 batches every 3 months with 5 to 7 families per session. A total of 268 sessions have been conducted in- by the four implementing NGOs with 478 families participating. In reference to the target mentioned by the InterAide representative, the output exceeds the target by 40%. Schedules and availability of families are a factor in meeting output. • Playgroup. Two playgroup session per month with 12 participants aged 3-7years each session or as needed. Twenty nine (29) play group sessions were conducted by the implementing NGOs in-. • Parent-Teen Sessions are conducted when needed. So far, 7 PTS Sessions were conducted to 5 families (5 parents and 5 teenagers). The program caters mostly to families with young children that is why only a limited number of session has been conducted. Besides, only 1 NGO is implementing this activity. 24 Table 4. NGO Performance: Output vs Target Activity Target Identification and enrolment of • families • Output 80 t 82 families per area per cycle 30 to 32 families per FDW per cycle 10 case folders a week • 1109 families enrolled by the 4 implementing NGOs -) • • 8 case folders or an average of 81.5% of case folders a week are updated Average of 36 sessions/area/year Regular debriefing Case Filing and Recording • Conduct of APP • Debriefing • 1 session per week per area or 48 APPs/area/year Regular debriefing Home Visits • At the time of enrolment • At the time of phase out • • 5 to 6 families/FDW 5 to 6 families/FDW • • Oras sa Pamilya • > 700 families based on the logframe Freeflowing, no target based on FDP team interviews • • • • Pulongs • • Creative Workshop (0-6 years old) Playgroup (3-7 years old) • • • Parent-Teen Session (only 1 NGO implementing) • Once a month per area or 12 pulongs a year Minimum of 10 to 15 participants 1 batch or 6 sessions every 3 months or 24 sessions/year (according to InterAide rep); used to be 2 batches or 12 sessions every 3 months or 48 sessions/year (before playgroup was implemented) 2 playgroup session per month or as needed 12 participants per session As needed • • • • • • • 5 to 6 families/FDW 5 to 6 families(ongoing)plus 2 to 3 phase out families per FDW 1,313 families served -) o 678 FDP families o 588 Non FDP families o 47 phase out families Total of 1,484 visits - pulongs conducted by the 4 implementing NGOs -,852 participants - sessions conducted by the 4 implementing NGOs -) Total of 478 families participated 29 play group sessions conducted by the 4 implementing NGOs - sessions conducted 5 families (5 parents and 5 teenagers) 25 5.2 Outcome 5.2.1 Opening an Area • The courtesy call and community profiling gave the implementors an overall feel of the actual situation of the area. .As a result, implementing NGOs were able to identify areas or sitios within the barangays which qualified for the program. As of June 2009, the program has been implemented in a total of 19 sitios in 10 barangays in Cebu City, Mandaue City and Lapulapu City. (Please refer to Table 5 for NGO Performance: Opening an Area) • The family profiling enabled the program implementors to identify whether families were qualified for FDP or not. The family profiling focused on issues and concerns of the families and allows the program implementors to zero in on the families which needed the program the most. • The program gained the support of the barangay LGUs. Aside from helping the implementing NGOs identify areas within the barangay where pockets of the poorest of the poor resides, the barangay provided logistics such as venues for community validation. They also provided personnel to escort the FDWs to the areas during community and family profiling. Coordination with the barangays has been smoothly established at the start of the program. As such, it was easier to refer the FDP families to avail of barangay services such as health referrals to the barangay health centers. Barangay Health Workers (BHWs) have been tapped for FDP activities like pulongs and are there to provide assistance to FDP families when needed. • Networking with other organizations and institutions was established during the scoping period. The implementors were able to generate the support of local leaders of local organizations in the area such as chapel associations. STEPS social workers assisted the implementing NGOs in coordinating and networking with the barangay LGUs and existing organizations in the area. Linkage with chapel associations helped a lot as community orientation and validation of family profiling results are usually done at the chapels of the sitio. Chapel presidents also assisted in information dissemination and encouraged their members to attend the activity. 26 Aside from local organizations, the implementors have been successful in getting the support of other NGOs and private organizations in the area. For example in Mandaue, they are able to refer families to a German doctor who has been conducting free clinics. 27 • • Stage(s)/ Activities Ocular visit of the area Courtesy call with barangay officials • • • • To make and get initial observation of the site (1) To be able to determine poorest of the poor area based on the criteria/ to identify what areas will qualify as FDP (3) To discuss the project with barangay officials and ask for their the suggestion/To make officials aware that FDP will enter their jurisdiction/to set agreement with the barangay that they will work on the area (3) To test the water if barangay likes your project and would likely cooperate/ Objectives • • • • • (4) o Ocular survey o Courtesy call o Recommendati • ons from BLGUs o Networking and resource mapping (visits to existing institutions in the area) on high density areas with the most number of poor families where almost half of the population belong to the poorest families) Identification of target area (Focus Approaches Table 5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Opening an Area 10 sitios (2) 9 depressed barangays (4) 82 families per cycle or 32 families per FDW (1) 1 meeting with the Barangay Chairman per area (4) 15% from the sitio population are the target respondents of the Community Profiling/ 23.7% of the poorest families (2) Targets • • • • Community profiling conducted in 19 sitios in 10 barangays (Ermita, Guizo, Tipolo & Mantuyong; Mambaling, Lorega & Subangdaku; Lorega & Carreta; Soong and Labogon (4) The 8 sitios identified have passed the FDP criteria -) (NGO4) Meetings with barangay chairmen (4) Around 680 families were interviewed for the family profiling (NGO4/NGO2)/ 80% of target families covered (2008) (NGO3) Output • • • • • 28 Areas identified as FDP (4) 19 sitios in 10 barangays were identified as FDP areas (4) Generated support from the barangay LGU (4) Generated support from other organizations and institutions (referrals) (4) Families were identified whether FDP or not (4) Outcome Presentation of Data Community Validation • • • Community survey/ profiling (est 15% of total number of families) • Stage(s)/ Activities • • • • • • • To determine if you are welcome in the barangay or not (2) To identify community leaders they can tap (1) To introduce FDWs to the barangay (2) To determine if area will qualify as FDP area (4) • To gather data about the community (1) To identify the issues/focus on community issues (2) To present and validate to the barangay LGU and the constituents the data gathered (2) • Objectives Setting-up the Area for o Community profiling (gathering of primary and secondary data) (4) o Area Mapping (1) area studies (area profile and needs assessment) (4) Evaluation of target areas or Approaches Table 5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Opening an Area Targets • • • • 9 community project orientations & validations conducted (NGO4/NGO2) Total of 240 participants from 3 barangays participated in the orientation (NGO4) Individual project orientations were also conducted to families who were not able to attend to the community project orientation (1) 10 field offices were set-up & functional (4) Output Outcome 29 • • • Family Profiling Screening and Assessment of Family Situation Stage(s)/ Activities Community/ project orientation • • • • • To inform the families about the FDP program and services (2) To inform them of FDP limitations and policies and program duration (2) To inform the community on the role of the implementers of the program (1) To gather data about the family and determine if • family qualified for FDP (1) To be able to gather additional information about family situation and determine • whether family may be enrolled in the program or not (2) Objectives Family Profiling (4) o Individual Family Project Orientations (1) o Validation (1) Setting-up of field offices (1) Implementation (1) o Community Project Orientation (1) Approaches Table 5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Opening an Area Targets Output Outcome 30 Stage(s)/ Activities • • To know the situations and concerns of the family (focus is on identifying issues specific to families (3) To identify issues and concerns that families were not able to identify (1) Objectives Approaches Table 5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Opening an Area Targets Output Outcome 31 5.2.2 Family Development Proper or Family Case Management 5.2.2.1 Identification and Enrolment of Families • Majority (40 out of 50) of the FDP families learned about FDP either from the community orientation about the program or the house-to-house visits conducted by the FDWs. A few (4 out of 50) answered that they learned about the program though invitation to activities such as creative workshop, playgroup and pulongs. The following are some of the reasons given by the families on why they joined the program (expectations): o To get scholarship/sponsorship for children’s education (10) o To help us in times of need/difficulty (e.g. sickness in the family, birth certificate )(8) o To avail of FDP services such as referral, counseling (advice) and information dissemination (e.g. info on medical missions).(8) o To learn about home management (handling of family issues and concerns such as health and budgeting (6) As one FDP mother puts it: “Sa akong pagkasabot sa programa kay magtinabangay, naay maduolan ig naay problema.” (As I understood it, through the program we should help each other and we could ask for help from the program in times of need). • According to the FDWs, 80% of those enrolled are willing and interested to join the program. Their willingness is shown by the fact that they set aside schedule for the FDWs to visit and are willing to answer questions about their families. They are willing to talk and to identify issues such as health, education, psychosocial, legal and economic. One FDW observed that “ang uban maghulat sa FDW bisan og buntag ila schedule unya hapon wala pa ang FDW. Usahay sila ang manawag og mangutana kun kanus-a mobisita” (The families would wait for the FDWs to come. If their schedule is in the morning and the FDW did not come, they would wait until afternoon for the FDWs to come. Sometimes when they saw the FDWs 32 in the community, they would ask when the FDWs were coming for a visit.). (Please refer to Table 6. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Proper or Family Case Management). • The willingness of the FDP families to join the program is shown by the fact that they continued to join the program despite being informed at the beginning (during the orientation) that the program has a no dole out policy and would not be able to meet some of their expectations (e.g. free medicines and scholarship for their children). Most (35 out of 50) of the families said that they joined the program because they are interested to learn (makat-on) new things such as home management, parenting, importance of bonding between parents and children, children’s issues and importance of quality time . “Bahalag way dole-out or material nga suporta basta kay nakakaton man ko.” (I don’t care if there is no dole out or material support as long as I learn something) (FDP Family) “Napuno-punoan ang kahibalo kay kamao na mo budget. Dili diay kinahanglan mopalit og mahal nga mga sinina)” (My knowledge has increased. I learned to budget and I learned that buying expensive clothing is not necessary) (FDP Family) More than half (27 out of 50) of the FDP families said that they continued to join the program because they liked the idea that they can share their problems and concerns with some one. “Okay ra nga bisan way gihatag nga material. Ganahan mi kay active man gud sila sa pagbisita namo.” It is fine with me even if we receive no material support from the program. We appreciate the program because they are very active in visiting us. (FDP Family) “Murag matandog ka sa ilang pagpasabot” (We are very touched by their explanations/advices) (FDP Family) 33 Other reasons for joining the program are: o To avail of the programs services like referrals (e.g. education, medicines) o To have someone to turn to in case of emergencies or in times of need 5.2.2.2. Follow-up of families • FDP teams noted that the families acquired skills in problem identification and in some ways in problem prioritization. (For a more detailed discussion please refer to the outcome by specific services/activities on page 41 as follow up of families is actually composed of the family development services/activities) 5.2.2.3 Case-Filing & Recording • FDP teams indicated that family cases / situation are monitored as information are recorded by the FDWs after each home visit. The coordinator monitors the progress of the families through the case folders and points out concerns that might have skipped the attention of the FDWs. (Please refer to Table 6. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Proper or Family Case Management) • Based on document study of the case folders, however, there is difficulty in monitoring what issues identified by the families in the action plan have been successfully addressed and which issues have not been taken up. (This will be discussed more thoroughly under assessment of strategy/tool). 5.2.2.3 Debriefing. There are two kinds of debriefing: o Debriefing after home visits o Debriefing after each activity (i.e. pulong, creative workshop, etc.) 34 Debriefing after Home Visit • FDWs are relieved of stress (makapahungaw sa gibati) during debriefing especially when they are dealing with families with heavy problems like abuse. They felt relieved from the negative energies and feelings shared by the families. (Please refer to Table 6. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Proper or Family Case Management) FDWs shared that it is quite difficult because they have to make 6 to 7 home visits in a day and sometimes they get a headache just listening to the problems and facilitating the families to come up with solutions. Being in direct contact with the families, they sometimes have difficulty in distancing themselves from the problems of the beneficiaries. Debriefing helps because they can share what they are feeling and in the process gain insights on how to deal with the problems of the families objectively. It allows them to stand back and take stock of the situation. Through debriefing, the FDWs learn and practice the value of reflection and analysis of situation through debriefing. Debriefing enhance the skills of FDWs. They learn how to be a keen observant of human behavior. For example, how to spot signs of potential abuse by the way a child behaves. Debriefing for other activities • FDWs are able to improve their skills in conducting activities based on the suggestions and recommendations of other FDWs, coordinator and technical staff. They gain confidence when their observations are validated by the technical staff. They learned additional insights on child behavior and parenting style. The insights serve as further inputs during home visits. Some FDWs stated that while the comments/insights of the technical staff are helpful, they feel like they are ‘under fire’ when the technical staff are present. They said that they are not able to unload their feelings when the technical staff are present because of the way the technical staff asked questions. Instead they feel like they are being evaluated. 35 Follow-up of families Case-Filing & Recording • • • Stage(s)/ Activities Identification of Families • • • • • • To monitor and update status of To capacitate the family so that they may be able to identify and prioritize problems and plan solutions to their problems • • • • • Family profiling results (3) Summary of Home visits Activities like pulong, creative workshop, etc. Family Profiling (4) Family Assessment Evaluation Discussion (4) To enroll families to the program (2) To identify light and priority cases (2) To entitle them to the program and services (1) • Approaches Objectives • • • • • 685 families (3) 10 case folders per FDW per week are 30 to 32 families per FDW (4) 81 or 82 families per area (additional families will be enrolled when some families are phased out) (4) 15 priority families per cycle (1) Targets • • • • Average of 81.5 % of case folders of all enrolled A total of 1074 families enrolled in FDP in 12 sitios (4) 151 families are considered priority while 923 families are classified as light (4) Output Table 6. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Proper or Family Case Management 80% of those enrolled are willing and interested to join the program (3) 80% of families appreciates FDP & are becoming more open to HV & other activities (1) Families identified issues such as health, education, psychosocial, legal and economic (1) • Family cases/situation are monitored (4) 36 • Families acquired skills in problem identification and in some ways in problem prioritization (3) • • • Outcome • Debriefing among FDWs Stage(s)/ Activities • • • • • • • • • • • • identified and prioritized issues upon entry (4) Update of Issues & intervention (4) Case plan/come up with action plan (4) Home-visit reports (2) Entry about observations on behavior (1) Venue to air out feelings FDWs from the activity (1) Analysis of strength & areas for improvement for every activity (1) Analysis of observations from families (1) Informal discussion on the progress of the families; informal discussion to families (2) To note possible objectives for the next week (1) To identify priority concerns (1) To come up with recommendati ons (1) To serve as venue for unloading of stress/ To provide stress debriefing to FDWs (2) To find out if FDWs have difficulties and to offer suggestions/ recommendati on/ To discuss difficulties in handling the activities (2) • Approaches Objectives • • families are updated (3) 8 case folders per FDW per week are updated (1) Output 1 debriefing after • Regular each activity (4) debriefings are o 3 times a week conducted after for home visits (1) every FDP o Twice a month for activities (3) creative o 288 debriefings workshop (1) for home visits o Twice a month for (NGO1) playgroup (1) o 72 debriefings for creative workshop (NGO1) o 1 debriefing for playgroup (NGO1) updated (1) Targets Table 6. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Proper or Family Case Management • • • 37 FDWs able to unburden or unload stress (3) FDW learned & practice the value of reflection & analysis of situation (1) Enhanced skills of FDWs in handling cases/FDWs acquired skills and learned where s/he needs improvement; FDW learned skills of being a keen Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities • • • assess the activity (3) Sharing of insights (1) Debriefing after HV are facilitated by Social Worker or Steps TS who accompanied FDW (2) To allow FDWs to share their observation on the process flow (1) To evaluate the activity (1) • Approaches Objectives Targets Output Table 6. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Proper or Family Case Management • • • • 38 observant; FDWs able to look at the situation objectively (3) FDW improved skills in conducting activities (1) FDWs observations are validated with technical staff (1) Improved activities (1) Additional inputs on child behavior and parenting style are obtained through creative workshops and playgroups; the inputs served as further inputs during home visits (1) Outcome 5.2.3 Capacity Building for Implementors 5.2.3.1 Analysis of Professional Practice (APP) • Through sharing of best practices re interventions and handling, the FDWs learn and gain insights from the way the other FDWs handled their cases so that when they encounter similar situations later, they are better equipped to handle it. (Please refer to Table 7. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Capacity Building of Implementors) For example, nitago ang pamilya o ang mama (the family or mother hides) after several home visits and the FDW does not know what to do. Should she phase out the family or continue with the home visit? During the APP, the FDWs are given tips on how to handle the situation. Such as try to visit again and arrange a new schedule with the family. Maybe scheduling is the problem. If it still does not work, then re-orient the family about the objectives of the program and ask if the family is willing to continue with the program. Another example is if the family at the time of the visit has an emergency but does not know where to go and there is nobody to guide them. Should the FDWs accompany them as it is an emergency situation or should they just give them referrals as the program has a no dole out policy? The FDWs said that they learned during APPs that they could go with the family in cases where it is an emergency but the family must provide for their own fare. • FDWs gained new perspectives on the cases that they are handling. Usahay na attach ang FDW sa pamilya (sometimes the FDWs grew attach to the family) that they can no longer look at the problems objectively. This was addressed through APP. For instance, one FDW shared that during one APP she really cried because she could not distance herself from the problems of the family that she was handling. The child was neglected, was sniffing rugby and had attempted to cut himself. The FDW thought that she had done all she could and had exhausted all her options but the problem remained. She has immersed herself with the problems of the family that “siya ang nakonsomisyon” (she felt bothered) and thought about it even after work. The APP helped as the other FDWs, coordinator and technical staff suggested other options in handling the case. 39 • FDWs have better understanding and analysis of the families they handled and are better equipped to respond to issues raised by families. When they have difficulty in handling cases, the coordinator and technical staff are present during APP para mapalawman ug magiyahan ang ilang pagsabot (to deepen their skills and guide them towards proper handling of the case). They learned that psychosocial issues, for example, have their roots in family history and that the attitude/behavior of the family affects child rearing skills. • Difficulties expressed during APP served as basis for STePs to organize activities for staff development. For instance, training on genogram was organized to deepen the FDWs knowledge and skills in identifying psychosocial issues. The genogram is supposed to deepen the FDWs understanding of the psychosocial issues of the priority families they are handling by going through the family history. However, many FDWs do not appreciate the genogram because it is very technical. For them, it is an additional burden to their work. An informant said that makaestorya man mi sa problema og history sa pamilya bisan wala ang genogram (we can analyze the problems of the family and how their history affects their attitude without the genogram). Only the FDWs of one NGO seemed to appreciate the genogram as a useful tool to draw out sensitive issues within the family. The FDWs of this NGO encouraged the families to draw the genogram themselves so that they may be able to understand their situation better. 40 • • Conduct of Analysis of Professional Practice (APP) Stage(s)/ Activities FDP Staff Trainings • • • • To orient the FDWs and coordinators on FDP methodology, process and services To build and enhance the skills of implementing FDP teams To serve as venue for FDWs to share their concerns on families especially difficult cases (3) To analyze the situations of families in order to understand their issues and provide appropriate intervention Objectives Review and analysis of family situations/ deeper analysis of family situation, FDWs Home-visit objectives are • • • Weekly case conference (3) FDP case management (3) Venue to share difficulties and weaknesses of FDWs for improvement (2) • • Approaches • • • 1 session per week per area (4) Presentation of maximum of 5 priority cases/FDW/meetin g (1) Targets Table 7. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Capacity Building of Implementors • • Average of 72 session per area has been conducted for -) (4) Output • • • Sharing of best practices re interventions and handling (1) Enhanced skills of FDW in case management (2) o FDWs have better understanding and analysis of the families they handled (2) o FDWs better equipped to respond to issues raised by families (1) 41 Staff are capacitated Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities To monitor the conduct of FDWs (1) To recommend to FDWs strategies on handling cases (1) To conduct stress debriefing (1) • • • To build the skills of the FDWs in problem analysis and resolution • Objectives • discussed and doable recommendation s are agreed upon (2) Most often, presence of STEPS technical Staffs (Psychology, Social Workers & OT) are helpful in family case analysis & intervention (1) Approaches Targets Table 7. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Capacity Building of Implementors Output • • 42 o FDWs gleaned insights/obtaine d tips from the cases discussed (2) FDWs becoming effective paracounselors (1) FDWs’ difficulties were identified as basis for STEPs to organize activities for staff development (1) Outcome 5.2.4. Family Development Services/Activities 5.2.4.1 Home Visit • Rapport and trust (pagsalig) established between the FDP families and the FDWs resulting in families ability to express concerns. After several home visits few families who are timid, secretive or resistant are becoming more open to express their situation. Some signs that they appreciate the program include welcoming the FDWs during HV and their willingness to disclose sensitive issues such as domestic violence, drug addiction, etc. They are easier to reach out and are willing to participate in activities. (Please refer to Table 9.1 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Home Visit). As one FDP family key informant observed: “Mura naman nako og mama si FDW1 kay wala man koy mama na gud.” (FDW1 is like my mother already since I no longer have a mother.) • HV is appreciated by most (38 out of 50) of the FDP families. Key informants from the FDP families said that they appreciated the visit from the FDWs “Ganahan nga bisitahan para sad naa koy makaistorya kung naa koy problema. Sa ilang pagbisita-bisita, mura sad silag inahan nako” (I appreciated the visit because I can share my problems with someone. They are like my mothers) “Maayo bisitahan kay makat-on sa mga advice sa FDWs.” (The visits are beneficial because I learned from the advices given by the FDWs). • Key informants from the FDP teams also validated that 45% of the families have now acquired skills in problem identification and in some ways in problem prioritization. Families could now differentiate between gravity of issues. For example, they know that TB is 43 communicable and needs medical intervention immediately. Instead of self medicating or going to the albulario (traditional doctor), the families now go to the health centers or the doctor for check-ups so that the TB won’t spread. The families now proactively go to the health centers when their children have fever or other common illnesses like cough and cold without waiting for the situation to get worse. Parents also monitor the school attendance of their children thus preventing children from dropping out of school. Whereas before pasagdan lang nga magsuroy suroy ang bata, ang bata ang magbuot kun moeskwela o dili (parents used to let their children roam the streets during school hours, they allowed the children decide for themselves whether they would go to school or not). (Please refer to Table 8. Needs and Issues Identified by the FDP Families During Home Visit and Actions Take) • Some families able to access resources without need for referral (sila na ang moduol) from the FDWs For example, mothers going to health centers for prenatal without FDWs needing to remind them or families going for check up for common illnesses without waiting to be told by the FDWs. “Niadto ko sa Cebu City Medical Center (CCMC) para pa check-up kay nahadlok ko basin gi TB na ko kay dugay na ang ubo. Pneumonia diay. Unya niadto sa Missionary of Charity para mangayo og tambal. Gi-refer ko sa FDW sa Kapwa Ko pero wala ko mo-adto kay layo, wala ko pamilite. Ang mga silingan nagtambag pag-adto sa Missionary of Charity kay malakaw ra.” (I went to CCMC to have a check up because I was afraid that my cough might have developed into TB. It turns out it was pneumonia. I went to the Missionary of Charity to ask for medicine and was able to get it. I was referred by the FDW to Kapwa Ko, but I did not go there as it is far and I don’t have any fare. My neighbors recommended the Missionary of Charity so I went there because it is walking distance from my place). • One NGO noted that through regular home visit and para-counseling, 10 families significantly improved their parenting style and stopped from physically harming their children(i.e., beating and tying up children with strings, not allowing them to go to school and forcing them to work for a living). 44 • Health problems (33) -common illnesses, lung disease, immunization, burns, tumors, liver/spleen diseases of family members, malnutrition, voice problem; cysts in the head and breast; malnutrition, nervous tension/insomnia of child, deworming; pregnancy and pneumonia Needs and Issues Identified by FDP Families during HV • • • • • • To go to hospital/clinic for admission/medical check up (13) To approach sponsors/institutions who will provide free medicines e.g. BHC, Missionaries of Charity, Kapwa ko, Mahal ko, VSMMC and Franciscan sisters (13) To clean environment to lessen dengue cases To find money for operation expensesmyoma To buy medicines directly. Did not ask for referrals; Go directly to Mabolo where relatives live to ask help when somebody is ill in the family To immunize children Health: Action Plan • • • • • • • • Action(s) Taken/Result(s) All children were immunized (5) Children were dewormed Availed of prenatal and postnatal in the barangay health center Babies placed on mother’s breast 2 hrs after delivery. Availed of free medicines/prescription/ financial assistance for medical needs from the following organizations (9) o Missionaries of Charity (2) o Balay Bata o DSWD (financial assistance) o Barangay health center (3) o Public hospital o Rep. Nerissa Ruiz (1) Availed of alternative medicines (2) o Herbal medicine (1) o Traditional medicine (“Binisaya”) Availed of medical services through help of relatives; borrowed money from relatives (namaylo kwarta)(2) Not able to access medicines from the BHC because they failed to give the compulsory donation of P20 (note: one respondent managed to get medicines only after referral was given by FDWs as she has no money to pay for compulsory donation while the other managed to scrape money to buy cheap 45 Health Table 8. Needs and Issues Identified by the FDP Families During Home Visit and Actions Taken Husband-Wife relations (20) -jealousy, frequent quarrels, • domestic violence, irresponsible husband, separation, no legal marriage; “My husband wanted me • gone, but I’m not leaving my • • • • Action Plan To understand each other/talk things over with husband/wife, as advised by FDW (8) To separate from husband and leave kids with the DSWD (3) Husband-Wife Relations To send children/OSY to school (7) To look for scholarships/sponsorships (e.g. Korean scholarship, to approach and ask help from the Brgy. Captain) (3) To let the 2 children who are in high school stop schooling due t lack of money Education Education for children(no money to buy school supplies, uninterested children)—18 • Needs and Issues Identified by FDP Families during HV • • • • • • Action(s) Taken/Result(s) 46 Improved husband –wife relations (less quarrel, minimized fights) as a result of advice from the FDWs (10) o Open communication/talk with husband regarding problems (8) Husband-Wife relations Availed of scholarship for day care ; children were sent to simulated classes (“klase-klase”) conducted by NGO2;Child was enrolled in Balay bata (4) Able to get scholarship for children at Maranata, but difficulty in providing fare Have asked referrals for scholarships, but still no available sponsorships Still some children do not want to go to school medicines from a nearby mobile clinic) (2) Failed to get medical attention (3) o Failed to go to mobile clinic because they have no fare o Mother failed to go BHC because she was tired o Mother has not time to take child to BHC because she is working Education Table 8. Needs and Issues Identified by the FDP Families During Home Visit and Actions Taken Parent-child Relations (8): Problematic children e.g. rugby boy, CICL; Eldest is separated from own family; No good relationship towards children. Always angry on children because they are too dependent on her; daughter won’t listen to mothers. Always make “layas” Legal documents: Birth registration, No marriage contract, Correction of entries-10 • • children behind.” (Palayasun ko, di jud ko mulayas. Bisan unsa nako ka-bati og nawng, di jud nako biyaan akong mga anak); “My husband does not remit his wages and even asked me for an accounting of expenses.” (Dili muhatag nako og kwarta pero kwentahan ko, mao akong isuwat tanan sa Yellow Pad). Needs and Issues Identified by FDP Families during HV To process registration (4) To follow up birth certificate (3) • • • • • To communicate with children - talking gently so that they will understand each other (3) Not heed the neighbors who have negative comments against her daughter To send problematic children to DSWD (2) To visit daughter who is not living with them Legal documents Parent-child To be cool and keep silent whenever they had arguments To convince wife to return home and beg mother-in-law to give him another chance. To bail out husband • • • • Action Plan • • • • • • • • • Action(s) Taken/Result(s) Obtained the birth certificates Thru referrals given by FDP, she was able to accomplish the required documents for the birth certificate of child 47 Problematic children were sent to DSWD Daughter visits them if she has time Daughter came home and stays with family Parent-Child o Learn how to control one’s temper (2) Behavior change in husband (3) o Minimized drinking o Stopped abusing wife o Less scandalous when drunk, he just sleeps (matulog na lang) Husband was free. Bailed out by parents. Still separated from his wife; mother-in-law does not want them to live together Marital living became better; Husband chooses the 2nd wife (the respondent) Table 8. Needs and Issues Identified by the FDP Families During Home Visit and Actions Taken Livelihood/Financial problems (18) Living is difficult: Husband has no work ; They always depend on parents; Not enough financial support; Husband is only part time tricycle driver; Fishing problemillegal entry; Poverty and “kawadon”; budgeting; Unemployment of family members Sanitation-drainage problem • • Basic necessities like food, clothing-3 Poor housing conditions • Other issues • Needs and Issues Identified by FDP Families during HV • • • • • • • • To secure joint affidavit (1) o Given info on how to process requirements (2) o Don’t want to depend on others. “We will just continue with our life and continue to try our best.” (Muagwanta na lang jud mi, maningkamot mig amo.) To improve drainage and sanitation To look for jobs /to encourage husband to find work (2) To ask referrals from NGO2 for employment. To do laundry to earn extra income To let eldest apply as a maid (2) To seek help from brgy captain to appeal to concerned authorities to allow them to fish Livelihood To seek legal advice in UP re marriage contract (1) Action Plan • • • • • • • • • • Action(s) Taken/Result(s) Drainage situation improved but not yet totally solved. The community has work hand in hand 48 Was able to get 3 kg rice from DSWD with the support of the barangay captain Availed of groceries from Hotel Princess and things like slippers, towels for children. One of the FDWs sought the help of the abovementioned company. Started vending food products (Naninda ginagmay) (Longganisa making, juice making) (3) Income in the family augmented Director of Bantay Dagat allowed them to fish but the executive officials of Cordova and Ermita still asked them to have their fishing boats registered. The City government refused to register because these are small fishing boats, not large fishing vessels. Still financially unstable BCs not claim due to financial problems (2) Has secured joint affidavit but still has to go to NSO Livelihood Table 8. Needs and Issues Identified by the FDP Families During Home Visit and Actions Taken • Emotional problem: Death of her child Needs and Issues Identified by FDP Families during HV • To move on and not dwell so much on the deceased child Action Plan • Action(s) Taken/Result(s) 49 together to solve the drainage problem. We contributed for the cement and the barangay donated the sand and gravel. The FDWs facilitated with the barangay LGU to help the community in solving the drainage problem (Bahin sa drainage, nagbayanihan mi. Nagamot ming mga residente para sa semento. Ang anapug ug bas sa Barangay captain para abuno. Nitabang ug hangyo ang FDP sa Kapitan para masulbad ang drainage problem) Mother learned to move on and realized that her surviving kid still needs her Table 8. Needs and Issues Identified by the FDP Families During Home Visit and Actions Taken Stage(s)/ Activities • Home Visit • • • • • • • • To gather more information about the family (2) To inform the families that they are enrolled in the program (1) To re-orient the families about the program (2) To arrange home visit schedules (1) To build rapport (2) To identify and prioritize problems or issues together with the families (3) To make the families realize or recognize concerns they did not identify before/ To share FDW’s observation or insights to the family (3) To provide families appropriate information that Objectives • • • • • Discussion , prioritization of issues/concerns per family (4) Coming up with • a plan of action to solve the prioritized concerns (4) Referrals (4) Approaches 30 to 32 families per FDW (4) Once a week for priority families and twice a month for light families (4) 70% of the 151 poorest families in the areas (90 families in Soong in 2007 and 61 families in Labogon 2008) (1) Targets Outcome 50 • 4 sitios from 3 • Establishment of rapport and trust (pagsalig) barangays covered -) (NGO4) between the families and the FDWs resulting • 1176 families visited in families -) wiliness/ability to ((NGO4/NGO3/NGO express concerns (i.e. 1) few families who are • 5223 total home timid, secretive or visits conducted resistant are becoming -) more open to express ((NGO4/NGO1) their situation (4) • 177 families visited • Families acquired skills in 2008 (NGO2) in problem identification • 1469 home visits and in some ways in conducted in 2008 problem prioritization (3) (NGO2) • Families able to • 81.8% of the understand their families followed-up circumstances and through home visits situation by identifying (NGO3) the root cause of their • 65 % of the enrolled problems (e.g. thru the families able to genogram) and achieve prioritize issues & a certain level of come up with action autonomy(3); Enhance plans (2) level of awareness of • A total of 521 families (1) referrals done in HV o Awareness of their (2008) (NGO4) own strengths and o Health referrals: Output Table 9.1 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Home Visit) Stage(s)/ Activities • • • • • would help them respond to issues/need (1) To facilitate discussion so the families may be able to plan and find solutions to their identified problems by presenting to them other options and alternatives (3) To follow up families and observe aspects where there are improvements (3) To observe comfortable ways or effective approach (1) To do para counseling (1) To give information on where and how to access available resources within and outside the family/ community (2) Objectives Approaches Targets 443 o Education: 10 o Economic: 4 o psychosocial : 22 referrals on issues o legal document : 42 Output Table 9.1 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Home Visit) 51 weaknesses (1) o Awareness that they have the capabilities to seek help in order to address some of their needs (1) o Identify resources within the family and in the community (1) • Families developed & worked out action points or plan of action based on the issues/need identified (1) o 86% of the families are able to solve their family concerns through plotting out their plans (1) o Fathers’ participation in the family action planning has increased from 5% to 28% (1) • Families able to access resources without need for referral (sila na ang moduol) (2) • Increased confidence in accessing services from the barangay (1) Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities Objectives Approaches Targets Output Table 9.1 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Home Visit) • Improvement in husband wife relationship and parentchild relations as a result of better communication (1) • Improved health and sanitation in FDP families home (1) • Through regular home visit and paracounseling, 10 families significantly improved their parenting style and desisted from physically harming their children(i.e., beating and tying up children with strings, not allowing them to go to school and forcing them to work for a living) (1) • Selected priority families (those who were inactive in joining creative workshops and stages of child development) find the “one-on-one discussion about the development of children” helpful and 52 Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities Objectives Approaches Targets Output Table 9.1 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Home Visit) 53 they are observed to have applied their learning at home (1) • Non-supportive fathers are involved in the family discussion with the wives in setting their own goals through the use of the family followup card (1) • Coordination with other helping institutions for assistance (1) Outcome 5.4.4.2 Oras sa Pamilya • Eighty percent (80%) of families (FDP and non FDP) gained access to services within and outside the barangay to address specific needs (health, education and legal documents) due to referrals provided during OP. (Please refer Table 9.2 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Oras sa Pamilya) • Eighty percent (80%) FDP respondents were able to avail of free medicines/ prescription/financial assistance for medical needs from organizations such as : o German Doctor o Balay Bata (SACMI) o Department of Social Welfare Services (DSWD) (financial assistance) o Barangay health center o Cebu City Medical Center (CCMC) o Justice Peace and Integrity of Creation (JPIC) o Franciscan o Kapwa ko Mahal Ko o Caritas • One hundred percent (100%) of families who were looking for information gained information and guidance from OP such as processing and claiming birth certificates and marriage certificates. Around 25% of the FDP key informants said that they were able to claim their birth certificates while around 60% said that they were able to process the birth certificates of their children but were not able to claim it due to financial reasons (no money). Below are some of the comments from FDP and non-FDP families regarding OP : “Anam-anamon ug kuha ang mga Birth Certificate sa mga bata. Importante man gud sa pag-skwela nila.” (Get the certificates one by one when I have the money. It is very important for the education of the children). (FDP Family) 54 “O, nakatabang gyud. Kung naa mi yangungu, motabang sila labi na kun kinahanglan makig-estorya sa kapitan.” (Very helpful. If we have problems/complaints, they help us especially if we need interventions from the barangay.) (FDP Family) “O, mogaan akong problema kung naa ko kaistoryahan. Bati kaayo kung imong solohon.” (My problems became lighter when I have someone to share them with. It is difficult to carry your problems alone). (FDP Family) “Nakatabang sila. Naluwas mi nila kay akong anak naa nay tambal. Ug wa pa sila, maglabad akong ulo. Kung adto BHC, daghang kuti” (OP helped us. My child was saved because we were able to access medicine. If we go to the BHC, there are a lot of procedures to follow. If OP was not there, then I would have a headache) (Non FDP Family) • Many families, especially phased-out families came to the counseling center every time they would be bombarded with family issues/ families able to relieve their stress through counseling (FDP Teams). • Around 50% of FDP families showed willingness to work out their concerns as they are seen during the Oras sa Pamilya. OP provides avenue for various issues and requests like emotional and spiritual enrichment. One visitor to the OP even conducted a pray over in the center (a pray over is asking for spiritual support through prayers) (FDP Teams). • Families gained information and guidance on different issues and concerns. In one case, a grandparent visited the OP to consult on the possibility of placing his grandchildren in a shelter as he has difficulty taking care of them. The FDP Team coordinator informed the grandfather that it would be difficult to place the children in a shelter (orphanage) as they still have relatives who could take care of them. The coordinator presented to the grandfather several options like referring him to the DSWD/DSWS for financial or material assistance and asking for his relatives support. In the end, the grandfather decided to keep the grandchildren with the support of relatives living in the area. 55 Stage(s)/ Activities • Oras sa Pamilya • • • • • • • To provide information on different issues (4) To provide guidance and counseling (4) To provide services like counseling and referral to FDP and non-FDP families (4) To provide information verification (1) To be able to cater to non FDP families’ concerns (1) To answer concerns not addressed in the home visit (2) To follow up learnings and feedback from other activities (e.g. pulong) and make sure that the families applied these (1) Objectives • • • • Opening of counseling centers (4) Counseling (4) Referrals (4) Remaining issues expressed in OP are followed-up in Home visits (1) Approaches • 1 counseling center in each area (open daily, 8 hours per week) (4) • No target (free flowing) Targets 1313 families visited the counseling center for a total of 1484 visits (4) o 678 FDP families (4) o 588 non FDP families (3) o 47 phase out families served (2) • 97 individuals enjoyed from the efficient referrals in 2007 (Health: 84, Education: 13) (NGO4) • 231 efficient referrals in 2008 (NGO4/NGO2) • Output Table 9.2 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Oras sa Pamilya) 56 • 46% of the FDP families showed willingness to work out their concerns as they are seen during the Oras sa pamilya/Families availed of Oras sa Pamilya and outside resources (1) • 35 non-FDP families regularly avail of the services of the Oras sa Pamilya (1) • Families able to come up with decisions and action points (1) • Families gained knowledge on how to approach/ inquire for services (1) • Families gained confidence to access services (within and outside the barangay to address specific needs (health, education, etc) (1) Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities • To provide avenue for various issues and requests like emotional and spiritual enrichment (e.g. pray over) (1) Objectives Approaches Targets Output Table 9.2 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Oras sa Pamilya) 57 • Families learned to access resources from GOs & NGO partners in order to respond their situation and are able to address some of their concerns through referrals made by the OP (3) • Many families, especially phased-out families used to come to counseling centers every time they would be bombarded with family issues/ families able to relieve their stress through counseling (2) • Families applied learnings (1) Outcome 5.2.4.3. Pulongs • Through pulongs families are better informed about issues (health, education of children, family relationship and others) affecting their lives. It enhances the capabilities of the families in responding to identified issues and concerns. (Please refer to Table 9.3 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Pulongs) As one FDP family noted: “Napun-an ang mga pamaagi nga angay i-apply sa pamilya.” (We have increased our knowledge on ways which we could apply to our homes and families) • The FDP teams stated that pulongs has provided practical inputs and information based on the needs or issues identified by the families. It provided relevant information proactively such as giving information about dengue before the rainy season starts. As a result, FDP families according to FDP teams were able to: o Gained knowledge about health and nutrition “Naggamit sa alternative medicine sama sa herbal: dahon sa bayabas para sa nuka; ug asin, asukal, init-tubig para suka-kalibang” (I learned about alternative medicine such as using guava leaves for scabies and salt, sugar and hot water for diarrhoea and vomiting). (FDP Family) “Dili na mohatag chichiria (junk foods) sa mga bata kay walay sustansya” (I learned that junk foods are not good for the children as it has no nutrients). (FDP Family) o Gained knowledge about child rearing (e.g. how to handle tantrums) and the importance of letting children play 58 o Realized on the importance of communication “Kabalo na modala sa bata kun sapoton, dili diay hatagan dayon og kwarta para mahilom” (I learned how to handle my child’s tantrum, not to give money to shut him up). (FDP Family) o Learned the importance of education (e.g. parents of OSYs enrolling their children in ALS) o Understood the importance of family planning in terms of health security and income management (i.e. child spacing is important) o According to one NGO, 244 Alaska families who were victims of fire were able to process their Slum Improvement Rehabilitation (SIR) requirements and availed of housing loans due to inputs given (inputs on where to go such as Pagtambayayong and the City Government and what to do) • Misconceptions on certain issues like family planning are corrected according to FDWs such as, withdrawal as a family planning method, and deworming not to be conducted during full moon) • In a few cases, critical thinking has been developed leading to responsible action and positive decision making skills and attitude such as taking care of simple illnesses before these develops into something serious. (FDP Teams) 59 Stage(s)/ Activities • Pulongs • • • • • To provide information based on identified needs or issues of families; To provide relevant information proactively ( ex. dengue outbreak and conduct of dengue discussions) (4) To provide practical inputs (1) To enhance the level of awareness in the family on different issues (1) To identify best practices among parents that will served as inputs for other parents (1) To provide opportunity to unite community on specific concerns e.g. water concerns/ bonding time with neighbors (2) Objectives • • • Practical inputs • on selected topics (based on issues identified by the families) are given with the • aim of influencing behavior (4) Topics are • suggested by beneficiaries or from an observed need of FDP team/ topics based on issues/needs identified by the families (2) Barangay Health Center staff are often tapped to be the resource person of health related topics (1) Approaches Once a month per area or 12 pulongs a year (4) 8 to 30 participant s per pulong (1) 10 to 15 participant s per pulong (3) Targets • • • Outcome families participants 60 • Increased knowledge on 140 pulongs certain issues (health, conducted with education, etc.) and 1852 participants enhanced capabilities in (4) responding to identified Inputs on topics issues and concerns; identified by the napun-an ang mga families/improved pamaagi nga angay iknowledge base of apply sa pamilya (3) partner families on o Families gained the ff: Topics: Dengue Awareness, Proper knowledge about Nutrition, Common child rearing and the Ilnesses, Commubicable importance of letting Disease (TB & Hepa), mmunisation, STDchildren play (1) HIV/Aid, Maternal Care & o Realization on the Family Planning, Health & Sanitation, Deworming, importance of Late Birth Registration, communication (1) Childrens Rights o Families learned the (NGO4/NGO2 importance of 14 special activities education (i.e. conducted parents of OSYs (Christmas Party, enrolling their Mtg. with fire children in ALS ) (1) victims, and Forum o Families understand on Anti-Trafficking the importance of in Persons Act Etc.) family planning in with 250 FDP terms of health families, 33 security and income phased-out families management (2) and 68 Non-FDP Output Table 9.3 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Pulongs) Stage(s)/ Activities • To give referrals (1) Objectives • Feedbacks of beneficiary learning, realizations are followed-up in Home-visits for family to comeup w/ action points/ Application of learnings monitored during home visits (2) Approaches Targets (NGO3) Output Table 9.3 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Pulongs) 61 o 244 Alaska families who were victims of fire were able to process their SIR requirements and availed of housing loans due to inputs given (inputs on where to go such as Pagtambayayong and the City Government and what to do) (1I) o Misconceptions on certain issues like deworming, family planning are corrected (1) • Critical thinking developed leading to responsible action and positive decision making skills and attitudes (1) • Families applied learnings resulting in change in behavior in terms of health, education, etc. (3) o Inclusion of learnings in the action plans (1) Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities Objectives Approaches Targets Output Table 9.3 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Pulongs) 62 o Immediate response to the issues identified (e.g. treatment of common illnesses) (1) o 50% participants started to clean their environment (1) o Few families having family members infected w/ TB & Hepa learned & practiced to separate kitchen utensils from other family members (1) o Number of women who go for pre-natal check-up increased (1) o Few women now go for post-natal checkup (1) o Majority of FDP mother has appreciated the value of immunization; some are now starting to immunize Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities Objectives Approaches Targets Output Table 9.3 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Pulongs) 63 their children while others are exerting effort to complete the set of immunizations (1) o Mothers who neglected the value of deworming has dewormed their children & express willingness to have a follow-up every after 6 months (1) o Families who did not prioritized birth registration have learned its relevance. Some have claimed the birth certificates while others are working on the processes of late birth registration & birth corrections (1) o Few families who are previously not using modern family planning methods has expressed interest, was referred to BHC for more Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities Objectives Approaches Targets Output Table 9.3 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Pulongs) 64 o Change in parents behavior in terms of handling of children of different ages and change in attitude towards children (1) o Families are bonding with neighbors and other members of the community (1) information & are now using it. (1) Outcome 5.2.4.4 .Creative Workshop (0-6 years old) • Increasing number of families who joined the workshops. According to the FDP teams, 54% of families who joined the workshops significantly showed interest in sending their children to school, provide time to play with their children and take time to attend meetings in school. • Parent and child relationship is enhanced through the activities conducted during the workshop. By increasing parents’ awareness on the rights, roles, responsibilities and needs of children, they are able to better understand and care for their children. (Please refer to Table 9.4. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Creative Workshop). o Parents learned to respect children’s interest (FDWs) “O, nilambo ang relasyon nako sa akong anak. Kabalo nako unsay paborito, batasan sa akong anak.” (My relationship with my child has improved. I now understand his behavior and know what his favorite things are). (FDP Family) o Parents realized the need for quality time and time management (i.e. spending time with children through play, child rearing and child caring) (FDP teams) o Parents realized the importance of play in the lives of children (i.e. creates bond, play as a form of communication) (FDWs) “Makigdula na sa mga bata, sa una pasagdan lang mga bata magdula. Importante para bonding.” (I now play with my children, before I just let them play by themselves. It is important for bonding). (FDP Family) • Children able to explore, show and develop their skills and potentials. 65 o Creative workshop allows the child to explore and develop a “sense of wonder” for the world around him/her.(FDWs) “Kabalo na mogamit ug lapis, bolpen akong mga anak. Dad-on nako sila tanan didto bahala na ug magsangkiig ko” (My children learned how to use pencil and ballpen. I would take all of them to the creative workshop even if I have difficulty). (FDP Family) “Sa CW, magtapok ang mga bata, mura ug managsoon. Kabalo na sila molambigit” (Through CW, the children learn to socialize, they act like brothers and sisters). (FDP Family) “Kabalo na ang mga bata mo sulat sa ngalan, mo draw, mo ihap og numero, mo identify shapes.” (My child learn how to write his name, to draw, to count and to identify shapes) (FDP Family) • In some cases learnings of parents have been translated into change in behavior. o Changes or improvement in parents child rearing skills as parents learned strategies in handling their children (e.g. in disciplining children dili dayon manghapak pero estoryahan lang). (FDWs) “Dili na mangasaba ug manghapak dayon sa mga anak kun makasala. Estoryahan sa ang bata.” (I don’t scold and beat my children immediately when they make a mistake. I talk to them instead). (FDP Family) 66 Stage(s)/ Activities • Creative Workshop (0-6 years old) • • • • • • • To improve/ strengthen/ enhance parentchild relationship (4) To enable parents to provide and appreciate quality time with children/To make mothers aware of the importance of giving children quality time (4) To make parents realize their responsibility to their children (1) To allow parents to discover their child’s potential (2) To enhance socialization/ improve ability to deal with other children (1) To emphasize the importance of play in child’s development (1) To clear up Objectives • • • • FDP team members trained by STEPs (4) Workshops conducted once every two weeks for parents to establish better parent-child relationship; participants must attend 6 creative sessions (4) Pre-test and post test conducted to assess the outcome of the activity (4) Follow-up home visits (4) Approaches • • • 1 batch every 3 months (4) or as needed 5 to 7 families with children 6 years and below or a total of 48 families in a year (3) 100% of parents who attended the workshop improve their skills on ECCD and parenting; violence and neglect (1) Targets • 5 mothers brought coloring materials for their children and continued CW activities at home (NGO4) • FDP staff developed skills in child behavior management, processing families’ experiences highlighting children’s participation, skills in choosing age appropriate activities for children and family dynamics (1) • Increasing number of families joining the workshops (1) • 54% of families who joined the workshops significantly showed interest in sending their children to school, made time to play with their children and took time to attend meetings in school.(NGO3) • Improved and strengthened relationship between parents and young children (3) • Increased awareness on the part of parents: o Parents realized the need for quality time 67 268 sessions conducted (4) • 478 families attended (4) o 36 families completed the 6 sessions (2008) (NGO4) • 100% of parents who attended the workshop improve their skills (e.g. ECCD and parenting) (NGO3) • 36 mothers have shown improvement in managing children’s behavior (NGO4) • Outcome Output Table 9.4. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Creative Workshop) Stage(s)/ Activities • • • misconceptions (e.g. hyperactive children are not normal (1) To strengthen communication between parents and children through play/provide time for bonding (2) To make the child feel that parent is a friend (1) To enable FDWs to observe behaviors of parents and children outside of home visit (1) Objectives Approaches Targets Output Table 9.4. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Creative Workshop) o o o o 68 and time management (i.e. spending time with children thru play, child rearing and child caring) (3) Parents realized the value of children’s participation and of respecting children’s autonomy (1) Parents realized the importance of play in the lives of children (i.e. creates bond, play as a form of communication) (1) Parents appreciate their children’s efforts (no matter how small) and learned to encourage them to develop their skills in the 5 aspects (1) Parents learned the importance of the activity and are encouraged to share what they have learned to the extent of requesting the Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities Objectives Approaches Targets Output Outcome 69 FDWs to conduct home-based CW in their home so that their neighbors (especially those who do not have enough time to visit the OP) can attend (1) o Parents learned to respect children’s interest (1) • Changed in behavior of parents (3) o Improvement in child rearing skills/ Parents learned strategies in handling their children (i.e. disciplining children) (3) o Change in outlook in terms of gender stereotyping (e.g. type of toys – dolls are for girls only, etc.) (1) o Parents learned ageappropriate toys (before children played with sharp objects) (1) Table 9.4. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Creative Workshop) • Home based creative workshop Stage(s)/ Activities • Objectives • Make-up session for families who were absent during the actual sessions (note: ineffective because of interruptions like household chores, etc.) (1) Approaches • Targets • 4 sessions conducted involving 7 families (NGO4) Output Outcome 70 • Children able to explore, show and develop their skills and potentials (i.e. artistic; children able to identify colors and shapes) (2) • Children improved their creativity (1) • Table 9.4. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Creative Workshop) 5.2.4..5 Playgroup (3-7 years) • Children enhance their socialization skills (Please refer to Table 9.5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Playgroup and Parent-Teen Session) Sa una maulawon kaayo ang akong anak. Dili makigdula sa ubang bata. Karon makigdula na sa ubang bata (My child used to be very shy. She refused to play with other children. Now she plays with other children). (FDP Family) • Parents learn and gain confidence in facilitating games for their children. “Nakat-un sa pagtudlo og pag-storytell sa mga bata bisan di ko professional” (I learned how to teach and to tell stories even if I’m not a professional) (FDP Family) • Playgroup strengthens the relationship between children and parents as it allows the parents to know their children better in terms of behavior. Parents understand better the value of bonding and socialization (FDP teams) 71 Stage(s)/ Activities • Play groups (3-7 years old) • Organizing playgroups as a way of introducing the FDP approach to the parents (4) • Allowing the FDP staff to observe the families in a different setting (i.e. different from the home environment) (4) • Observing the children as a means to detect children with specific difficulties (4) • Opportunity for children to develop socially, physically and mentally (4) • To provide venue for development of 5 aspects of child development/ Opportunity for children to show their talents (3) • To observe child development (1) • To improve parenting skills (1) • To enable parents to acquire skills in planning and facilitating activities/To provide opportunity for parents to conduct activities with the assistance of FDW (2) • To motivate parents to come up with ideas how to play with their children (1) • To provide venue for children to socialize with others (3) Approaches Objectives Output • 1 • 29 play group playgroup sessions are per month conducted to 5to 6 with 12 families w/ 12 participants children (4) aged 37years • 75 families each composed of 36 session or parents and 119 as needed children participated; (2) of the 75, 32 were • A minimum FDP, 26 non-FDP of 6 and 17 Phasedparents to out (SACMI) be trained (1) • 12 participants per session (3) • > 80% of children below 5 years old attend play groups (FDP family); > 10% for Non-FDP (1) Targets 72 • Children who are living in very congested area & who are often neglected are given the opportunity to play (1) • Children becoming more active; improved participation in play; developed socialization skills (4) • Children able to relate better with other children (for instance playing/ children able to gain new friends (2) • Parents know their children better in terms of behavior (1) • Parents understand the value of bonding and socialization (2) • Parents showed great interest in learning ways to facilitate games for their children/parent facilitators gained confidence in facilitating and developed their skills and attitude (3) Outcome Table 9.5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Playgroup and Parent-Teen Session) • Parent-Teen Session Stage(s)/ Activities Approaches • To provide quality time for children (1) • To emphasize the importance of play in child development especially for parents who have not experienced play before (1) • To undertake • Therapeutic therapy activity activity to raise hoping to improve or the level of workout parent-teen awareness relationship (1) among teenagers and • parents toward • To generate improve parentawareness of issues teenager of each other (1) relationship (1) • Families must • For parents to complete 7 understand teens sessions which and for teens to include understand their observation of parents (1) behavioral • To know the rights patterns (1) of child (1) • To know the responsibilities of parents (1) Objectives • • As needed (1) 5 families per session (1) Targets • 7 PTS Sessions are conducted to 5 families; 5 parents & 5 teenagers (FORGE) Output • Learnings from the participants(1): o Teenagers mood swings are results of biological changes and parents must understand (1) o Quality time is important (1) o Complex problems can be solved if family members help each other (1) o Respect and observe each others rights and responsibilities (i.e. as a parent and as a child) (1) o Open communication is necessary to prevent misunderstandings 73 Outcome Table 9.5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Playgroup and Parent-Teen Session) • Trainings Stage(s)/ Activities • To orient the families on the importance of the program or activity (3) Objectives • Orientations (3) o FDP o Play group orientation for parents o Play group parents volunteer session o Parent teen orientation o Budget Approaches • 10-12 children per session (2) Targets o 13 sessions conducted involving 362 participants, 118 of which are FDP beneficiaries (2008) (NGO4) Output • 74 Parents in some ways capacitated to facilitate an activity (2) • physical • Parent-teenager relationship has improved (1) o Parents are now properly communicating to children(1) o Teenager are now openly communicating to parents & voluntarily helped in household chores (1) • Families have better understanding of the purpose of the services/activity (1) • Increased confidence and participation from families (1) • Cooperative and fully understood the program (1) (1) Outcome Table 9.5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Playgroup and Parent-Teen Session) 5.2.5 Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community 5.2.5.1 Phase-out • Families able to identify and respond to their needs without waiting for FDWs “Makamao moila sa problema ug makapangita ug paagi” (they usually report their initiatives to the FDWs – e.g. visiting the health center to ask for medicine) (FDWs). (Please refer to Table 10. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community) • Thirty five percent (35%) of families showed signs of being able to stand on their own (being able to identify, prioritize and find solutions to issues; and accessing services without the need for referrals). According to the FDWs, the signs include: o Going to the barangay health centers for treatment, immunization and prenatal A few families are proactively going to the BHCs for illnesses which they think are communicable (e.g. TB, hepatitis). o Talking to teachers about the status of their children’s education (e.g. asking the teachers to give their children time to submit projects, asking the teachers for advices on how to make their children go back to school. • Some FDP key informants realize that they should stand on their own. One key informant remembered the FDW asking her: “Unya Rose, kung di ka moadto kinsa may molihok para nimo?” (Rose, if you do not go then who will do it for you?) “Kahibalo na moila sa problema og nagamit ang mga advices sa FDW. Nakapahungaw na sa problema, kahibaw na modala sa problema” (I learned how to prioritize my problems using the advice of the FDWs. I was able to unburden and know how to handle my problems). (FDP Family) 75 Nakat-un sa kaugalingon, kay kung wala ko gitukmod sa FDW dili ko makat-on sa pag-survive.” (I learned how to stand on my own. Without the prodding of the FDWs I would not have learned how to survive). (FDP Family) “Diba kung naay problema, ma down dayon ka? Karon dili na. Sa ilang pagtabang, madasig ka, dili ka mawad-an og paglaum.” (Before when I have problems I got depressed immediately. Now with their advices, I am encouraged and became hopeful). (FDP Family) 76 • Family Phase-out assessment & evaluation discussion Activities Stage(s)/ • • To assess the current status of the family whether they have attained objectives or not (1) o To determine the capacity of the families (1) o To note significant changes in the families (1) o To identify issues or concerns addressed and not addressed/ to check if family issues have been solved (2) To determine if there are significant changes in the families in terms of capacity and Objectives • • • • Pre and Post family evaluation evaluation of the families situation at the time of entry and phase out (knowledge, attitude, practices survey) (4) Meeting with families to review progress (4) Case conference (FDWs and STEPS) (4) Constant monitoring of phase out families to determine sustainability or fluctuation of situation (4) Approaches • • The number of families to be phased out depends on results of assessments (3) Phase out family after 6 to 10 months (1) Targets • • • Output Continued monitoring of families targeted for phased-out by continuing home visits (once a month for 3 months) (2) Referrals continued at the Oras sa Pamilya(2) 427 FDP families phased out in 2008 (3) o 111 families phases out in 2008 have reached their most significant objectives and a certain level of autonomy (2008) (4) o 153 families have solve majority of the issues and reached a Table 10. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community • • 77 Some families showed signs of being able to stand on their own (making simple decisions and accessing services without the need for referrals) (4) Families developed initiative and resourcefulness in meeting problems (1) o Enhanced capacities in decision making with families being able to identify, prioritize, and solve issues and concerns (1) o Families able to identify and respond to their needs without waiting for FDWs (they Outcome • Transition Activities Stage(s)/ • • • • • • behavior change To determine whether for phase out or for re entry; if phased out, inform the families that they can still join the pulong and other activities (1) To give follow up cards to the families (1) To conduct once a month visit for 3 months to monitor the families (1) To visit families for Evaluation C during the 6th month (2) To determine if families are able to sustain changes (1) To be able to Objectives Approaches Targets • • • • • • Output certain degree of autonomy (2008) (4) 26% of the families sustain their improvement (2008) (NGO3) 346 families able to access referral services (2008) (NGO4) • Total of 649 referrals (2008); 80% are efficiently served (NGO4) 141 non-FDP families served (2008) (NGO2) 62.6% of issues identified successfully resolved (2008) (2) 58.7 % of health issues successfully resolved (2008) (2) Table 10. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community 78 usually report their initiatives to the FDWs – e.g. visiting the health center to ask for medicine); “makamao moila sa problema ug mkapangita ug paagi” (NGO2) Improved capabilities in maximizing resources within and outside the community families gained access to basic services such as health, education, nutrition and legal documents (NGO1) o Gained confidence in asking for help from agencies and institutions and thus able to Outcome Activities Stage(s)/ serve more families (1) Objectives Approaches Targets • • • • Output 53% of education issues successfully resolved (2008) (2) 45% of family relationship issues successfully resolved (2008) (2) 37.5% of legal documents sues successfully resolved (2008) (2) 38% of economic issues successfully resolved (2008 (2) Table 10. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community • 79 access resources to solve their problems (NGO1) Participation in community affairs (e.g. 5 FDP families participated in BCPC and two FDPs have seats in the BDC in Mambaling) (1) Outcome 5.2.6 Outcome by Issue • Health (Please refer to Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP) – 65% of families who received inputs have their children immunized (FDWs) – Decrease in the number of malnourished children; aside from referrals to feeding programs like JPIC, inputs from pulongs and HV helped (e.g. junk food is bad for children, vegetables like mongo and squash are good for children) (FDW and FDP families) – 70% of families who received inputs have their children dewormed (FDWs) – 75% of the mothers who received inputs have availed of prenatal in the barangay health centers (FDW ) The figures are estimates only. As the FDP teams pointed out during the June 8 validation, it is very difficult to know the exact numbers as the program does not provide direct intervention. Besides, as one participant pointed out “we are not exactly sure if they went to the heath center to have their children immunized or dewormed because of our inputs.” She pointed out that the barangay health workers (BHWs) are also doing their job (the BHWs do go around the community) and that the program should acknowledge the efforts of other organizations and institutions. Aside from difficulty in establishing causality (input of FDW and outcome), there are also limitations in setting targets on health when the program does not provide direct intervention. If the program sets targets on health like immunization and deworming, achievement of this target would be dependent on the resources available within the area or barangay. Health services are usually offered by barangay local government units which has limited resources. What if the barangay does not initiate deworming or immunization? Won’t the target of the program be also affected considering that the program has no direct intervention? So no matter how much input on deworming the FDWs give, it would be difficult to gauge outcome if no resources within the barangay are available to the community. According to Inter Aide, the program does not provide direct intervention as it believes that it is not the program’s role to substitute to local private or public organizations. The limitations are on the barangay side, not on the program side, which is coherent with its strategy and approach. 80 • Education – 20% of families who received encouragement sent their children to pre-school; some scholarships are also offered by the program or through other NGOs (FDW and FDP families) – Pre-school children acquired skills which made it easier for them to enter elementary (FDW and FDP families) • Family Relationship/Welfare. Improved relationship within the family through open communication (non-violent) (FDW and FDP families) (Please refer to Table 12. Outcome by Issue based on FDP Families Perception) – Most (37 out of 50) of FDP families observed that fights/quarrels between husband and wife have been minimized as wife shared what she learned (from the program) with her husband. “Magtinabangay mi sa akong bana sa pagsulbad sa problema. Dili biyaan ang problema. Mas maayo nga kataw-an ang problema.” (My husband and I now work together to solve our problems. We do not ignore problems rather we laugh about them.) (FDP Family) “Di na kaayo moinom ang bana only on social occasions o kun mo-inom di na magbanha” (My husband does not drink so much any more only on social occasions or if he does, he is usually not as loud as before) (FDP Family) “Wala na ko manugal, bantay nalang ko sa akong anak. Kung mopadayon sugal, among mga bata mapasagdan ug magkasakit” (I stopped gambling and instead I take care of my children. I realized that if I continue gambling, my children would be neglected and they would get sick.) (FDP Family) 81 “Di na kaayo gubot akong hunahuna kay malinawon ug hapsay na ang among pagpuyo.” (My mind is clearer because our life is more peaceful and harmonious). (FDP Family) “Og mag-away, di molayas dayon. Kabalo na ko moparayeg ug labinglabing sa akong bana, para pud di mangita ug lain” (I learned that when we have a fight with my husband I should not just pick up and leave. I learned how to take care of him.) (FDP Family) “Dili dayon awayon ang bana kun mo-uli nga hubog o dugay mo-uli.” (Not to scold the husband immediately when he comes home drunk or when he is late) (FDP Family) – It has been observed that lesser number of physical and verbal abuse towards children from FDP and non FDP families “Dili hapakon ug kasab-an dayon ang bata kun makasala. Kinahanglan estoryahan lang.” (Not to beat and scold the child when he commits a mistake. Rather, talking is more effective). (FDP Family) “Dili na kaayo mamunal sa mga bata” (beatings have been minimized) (FDP Family) • Legal Documents- refer mostly to birth certificates (BCs) – Eighty percent (80%) of the FDP families who received encouragement have gained information on how to process and claim BCs (FDW) – Eighty percent (80%) of the FDP families who received encouragement have started processing the birth certificates of children (FDW) – Fifty percent (50%) of the FDP families who received encouragement were able to claim their birth certificates (FDW) – Majority (90%) were able to process their birth certificates but were not able to claim as they do not have the money to pay for the documents (FDW). 82 • Stage(s)/ Activities Health • • • Inputs on Health (4) Referrals (4) Home-visit (1) Approaches • Targets • 9 health related topics are discussed in Pulongs (NGO4) • 36 families were assisted on health issues (2008) (NGO2) • 62.1% efficiently referred (NGO4/NGO1) o 50% of those efficiently referred have availed of services (NGO1) • 119 families given health referrals (2007) (NGO4/NGO1); 272 families given health referrals (2008) (4) • 51 families given information related to health (2007) (NGO4/NGO2); 75 families given information related to health (2008) (NGO4/NGO2) • 2 family assisted for medical emergencies (2007) (NGO4/NGO3) • 4 or 2% of families given health counseling (2007) (NGO3)/ 5 families given counseling (2008) (NGO1) Output Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP 83 • Increased number of families availing of health services (1) • Families directly access health services from the barangay health centers without asking for referrals from the FDWs (1) o Parents becoming more proactive in terms of responding to health needs (1) • Better health conditions for children due to increase number of children immunized, dewormed, etc (NGO4) • Families able to access health services and medicines through referrals within and outside the community (3) • Few parents who were neglecting the health condition of children (fever, cough, allergies etc) or relying on quack doctors are now regularly coming to BHC & NGO health provider for free check-up & free medicines (1) • Improved awareness on the importance of being healthy and the importance of sanitation to health (cleanliness in the home and personal hygiene) (2) Outcome Stage(s)/ Activities Approaches Targets 84 Health condition of families improved (2) o Non-FDP members availed of the community trainings that provided basic and applicable learnings (i.e., Common Illnesses and Home Remedies) (NGO3) o Number of children immunized & dewormed increase (NGO4) • 100% of elementary students and Pre-schoolers under FDP from 2 barangays availed of the Mass Deworming provided by SEALNet and Feed the Children with the support of the Barangay Health Centers and DepEd -) (1) o Few women who are suffering from chronic or malignant disease such as (Hypocalymic paralysis, Ulcer, goiter, cyst, cervical infections & breast cancer) were previously afraid of health check-up or probably not prioritizing it, were able to access free check-up, discounted laboratories & free meds. from BHC, CH & from hospitals (NGO4) • Referral system set-up to assist not only direct beneficiaries but other residents in the area (NGO4/NGO2) • 100% of families needing family planning given inputs (NGO4) • 40% of families given family planning inputs practiced modern FP (NGO4) • 86% of the health issues successfully addressed (2008) (NGO3) • 10 FDP families given intervention on tuberculosis (NGO3) • 86% of the health issues successfully addressed (2008) (NGO3) • 10 FDP families given intervention on tuberculosis (NGO3) • Outcome Output Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP • Education o Promote preschool, Elementar y & even HS education Stage(s)/ Activities • • Inputs on importance of education during home visits and visits to counseling centers (4) Parents are encourage to reenroll drop out children & are encourage to provide ample support (1) Approaches • Targets • • • • • Outcome o 9 out of 10 of the families given intervention on TB treated (NGO3) 69 % of families referred • Families understand the value (2007) (NGO3) or 14 of sending their children to families referred (2007) school; Families motivated to (NGO4/NGO1); 33 families find ways to send their children referred (2008) to school (2) (NGO4/NGO2/ NGO1) o 100% of the families with identified education issues 80% of families needing has continued providing inputs on education education to their children received information and (2008) (NGO3) encouragement (2008)(NGO2) • OSY beneficiaries availed of the Alternative Learning System 22% of families given (FDP coordinated with the information related to Barangay and PTCA of education (2007) (NGO3)/ 9 Mambaling Night High School) families given information (2007) (NGO3) related to education (2007) o 6 out of school children have (NGO4); 2 families given sustained ALS education as information related to a result of FDW referrals education (2008) (NGO4) (NGO4) 79% of the education issues o More than 10 children of successfully addressed FDP and non-FDP families (NGO3) availed of the Acceleration 9% of families given and Equivalency Test for education counseling OSY (FDP facilitated the (2007) (NGO3)/ 1 family coordination with the given education counseling barangay and Tierre Sans (2007) (NGO4); 10 families Frontier (2008) (NGO3) were given counseling 85 Output Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP o Pre-school scholarship program Stage(s)/ Activities • • • • • • Temporary support for parents who have difficulty sending their children to school (4) FDW ECCD specialist in contact with pre-school teachers (4) FDW ECCD work closely with STEPS for technical support (4) Contract executed between NGO and parents (4) Financial counterpart from parents required (4) Support stops as soon as parents gain Approaches Targets • 38 children given scholarships (3) o 2 dropped out (NGO4) • 12 pre-schoolers were referred to JPIC and 8 were referred to the Cuenca Daycare center (NGO1); 4 children referred to JPIC pre-school program (2008) (NGO1) • School performance of children monitored (1) • Parents support are encourage (1) o 50% counterpart from parents (1) • Active participation of parents in Pre-school and FDP activities (2008) (NGO4/NGO2) Output Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP • • • • 86 o 5 passed the A&E/ALS and enrolled at Mambaling Night High school for continuing education (2008) (NGO3) Few children who dropped-out from school have gone back to school (NGO4) 15 children were given school supplies from Barangay executive office as a result of referrals (NGO4) Families recognized the importance of pre-school o Children who graduated from pre-school passed the entrance exam in public elementary schools) (1) Sustain interest of children in pre-school program (1) o 15 children sustained education & are now in grade 1 or continued with daycare (2) Outcome • Family relationship/ welfare Stage(s)/ Activities • • • • • • • • • Counseling/Para – counseling (4) Inputs on husbandwife and parent-child relationship (1) Trainings (3) Assessment and monitoring tools developed (1I) Referrals (1) Creative Workshop (1) Parent-Teen (1) Play Group (1) Home-visit (1) the ability to sustain their educational needs (4) Approaches • • 50% families exposed to family violence reduced the frequency of domestic violence (1) 25% of parents able to help teenagers reduce involvement in gangs or delinquent actions (1) Targets • 90% of FDP enrolled families are given opportunity to share their experiences & relationship issues during home visit where FDWs do processing (NGO4) • 9 families given psychosocial referral(2007) (NGO4/NGO3) ;20 referrals (2008) (NGO4) • 20 families given information given information on psychosocial issues (2007) (NGO4/ NGO3/ NGO1); 21 families (2008) (NGO4/NGO1) • 22 families given psychosocial counseling (2007) (NGO4/NGO3/ NGO1); 39 families given psychosocial counseling (2008) (NGO4/NGO2/ NGO1) • 2 families assisted for psychosocial issue Output Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP 87 • Families guided and given options (1) • Families made decisions on what to do with their problems (1) • 90% of FDP shared their experiences & relationship issues during home visit (1) • Improved relationship within the family through open communication (non-violent) (1) o 80 families now communicate openly with each other (FORGE) o Learned the importance of spending quality time (not only with their children but also with their husband or wife (1) o Increased knowledge on rights, roles and responsibilities of parents and children (2) • Women and children became aware of their rights to be protected from exploitation and Outcome • Legal documents Stage(s)/ Activities • • • Information (4) Access (4) Referrals (4) Approaches • Targets • 68 families referred(2007) (3) • 85 families referred (2008) (4) • 12 families given information related legal documents (2007) (NGO4); 57 families given emergencies (2007) (NGO3) • 19% of family relationship issues successfully solved (2008) (NGO3) Output Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP 88 o 5 Cases of domestic violence was immediately reported by abused wives to the Barangay or to the Department of Social Welfare and Services (1) o Minimized incidence of child neglect in 47 families (1) o Minimized incidence of child abuse (physical and verbal) in 61 families (NGO4) o Minimized incidence of child sexual abuse in 5 families (NGO4) o 3 children engaged in child prostitution given interventions (NGO4) • Realization of importance of registration (1) • Receptive LGU and the Office of the Civil Registrar (1) • Facilitated in the processing and acquisition of legal documents such as birth certificates, baptismal, etc. (1) violence (1) o Minimized incidence of domestic violence in 45 families (1) Outcome • Economic Stage(s)/ Activities • • Existing skills were capitalize to augment income/FDWs encourage families to utilize existing skills to augment income (3) • Referral to other NGOs with creditsavings program (2) • Training of FDWs on family budget Approaches Targets • 5 families given referral(2007) (NGO3); 6 referrals (2008) (NGO4) • 7 families given information related to livelihood (2007) (NGO4/NGO3); 5 families given information related to livelihood (2008) (NGO4) • 54% of economic issues (i.e., livelihood) successfully information related legal documents (2008) (NGO4/NGO3) • 3 family given counseling (2007) (NGO4/NGO3); 2 family given counseling (2008) (NGO4/NGO3) • 36.5% effectively processed/claimed documents (3) Output Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP • • • • • • • • 90% of families given information on legal documents (NGO4)/ 21 families given information on legal documents (NGO2) 61 birth certificates claimed (NGO4/NGO2) 103 birth certificates processed (NGO4/NGO2) Families directly availed of legal aide from the UP Law Alumni Office and from YLAC (Services like Delayed Birth Registration and processing Marriage license) (NGO3) A directory of helping agencies for legal processing of documents is disseminated to FDP and even non-FDP members (NGO3) Families availed of the skills training and job placement provided by PSCB of DSWS, Don Bosco-Dedon and USJR Engineering Department (2007) (NGO3) 2 successfully referred and found employment (NGO4) 50 families found other means of livelihood due to encouragement (NGO4) 89 Outcome • Other family issues Stage(s)/ Activities • Network with appropriate partner organization that could deliver the credit and saving services; possible linkage with CPMPC (2) • Conduct survey in selected target areas (1) • • management and saving (2) • Re-echo the training to the beneficiaries (1) Approaches Targets • 131 family referred re calamity problem (2007) (NGO4/NGO3); 17 referrals (2008) (NGO4) • Address other issues like violence in the community (may not necessarily be inside the home) (NGO3) solved (2008) (NGO3) • 3 families given economic counseling (2008) (NGO4) Output Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP • 90 • Strengthened cooperation with the city government (job fairs) (NGO3) • Families learned the importance of budgeting and setting aside of funds to address specific needs; difference between needs and wants (1) • Families recognize the importance of savings • 119 Families are already saving money in the PPT, mostly for livelihood purpose (NGO3) Outcome • • • • • • Husband and wife always fight (40) Husband and wife seldom talk to each other; wife afraid to talk to husband (12) Husband abuses wife and children (8) Husband (sometimes wife) drinks (11) Husband never gives money to wife (6) Wife have vices (gambling, drugs) (5) Husband-Wife relations Education • Pre-school children has limited knowledge (5) • Children didn’t go to school (OSY/ Child didn’t want to go to school (5) • • • • • • • • Health • Children were malnourished (6)) • • Children eating junk foods; not conscious what kinds of food we give • to our children (2) • Children not immunized (6) • • Practiced self medication • Children go to school without eating (3) • • Before FDP Fight has been minimized (37) Husbands or wives drink less or when he drinks he is less noisy or only on social occasions(11) Stopped gambling(3) Reconciliation between husband and wife Less tantrums Children sent to school; Found sponsors for education of children Plan to re-enroll children under the scholarship program of FDP. Weight of child increased after availing of feeding program (3) Mothers learned to prepare the right kinds of food ; Mothers see to it that they have right food to eat (5) Mothers learned not to give chichiria (junk foods) to children (2) Children were immunized (5) Visited the BHC for health needs After FDP Table 12. Outcome by Issue based on FDP Families Perception • • • • • • • • • • 91 Open communication lines established between husband and wife ; wife shared things she learned from the program(12) Improved relationship between spouses (bonding strengthened (9) Learned not to rely always on parents; becoming more independent (2) Parents learned the importance of education and encouraged children to school (4) Pre-school children acquire skills (drawing, writing, reciting numbers and the alphabet)) Children stayed in school Improved health of children and family members (4) If we have problems, we already know where to go such as the BHC and different committees in the brgy council (2) Learned and use alternative medicines Drug addiction: Learns that taking drugs is not good to the health. Damaged one’s life; life now is drug free. Changes • • • • • • • • • • Mother always scolds (kasab-an) and beats (hapak) children (12) Children do not listen to parents; children are hard-headed resulting to conflicts between family members. (8) o Children were stubborn o Children showed no respect to their parents Parent-child quarrels (runaway) (2) Mother do not have time to play with their children as they are immersed in work (8) o I just let my children do their own affairs. I am too busy to be with them Children seldom play with other children; children were shy (7) Children not taken care of sometimes (e.g. children very dirty) (dili makaligo) (2) Children gamble Children into drugs (rugby). Dependent on in-laws for support (2) Burdened with problems (no one to talk to) • Nobody to remind us on the things we should do and on the things that are deemed right and wrong. Parent-child Before FDP Children acquired new skills such as writing, coloring, inventing things, socialization skills ,identifying shapes, dancing (21) Parents especially mothers do not scold children immediately; just talk to children when things go wrong; proper way of disciplining (11) Children played with other children; are allowed to go out and play (6) Mothers spend time to play and teach their children (6) Parents have time to play and talk with children (4) Mothers took care of children (e.g. bathing the children, changing their clothes) (kaligoon na ang mga bata, ilisan) Mothers allowed children to make mistakes Instead of playing, the program encouraged us parents to teach our children to have educational activities • • • • • • • • Stopped taking drugs • After FDP Table 12. Outcome by Issue based on FDP Families Perception • • • • • • • 92 Parents learned to be patient with their children/how to handle their children properly (13) Open communication between parents and children; children listen to parents (11) Mothers have realized that play is important to the socialization of children (6) Parents discovered children’s potentials (thru CW and PG) (6) Bonding is established between children and parents (4) Mothers understand their children better (3) Children learn to understand their parents now. Children are now obedient; they know how to listen to their parents. (2) Changes • • • • Financial instability; lack of stable job • (4) • Lack income; one-day-one-eat (4) • Economic • Ignorant on birth control; lack • knowledge on family planning (3) Home Management • Didn’t know how to budget (5) • • Disorganized Home • Family Planning Before FDP right method Found regular employment (3) Able to eat three times (2) Situation did not improve ; Still the same (Mao ra gihapon, naglisod). (2) Learn how to prioritize needs and to budget (3) Mother cleaned the house before making lag Learned the contraception • • • • of • like simulated classes (klase-klase) Feel young again as a result of the activity Son sent to community school to study and stay. After FDP Table 12. Outcome by Issue based on FDP Families Perception Peaceful family life( mas malinawon nga panimuyo) 93 Able to buy basic necessities especially food Learned about budgeting Attend to family’s needs and organize the house before doing anything else e.g. lakwatsa. Able to manage family situation Changes 5.5 • Assessment of Strategy or Approach Most effective strategies/approaches according to the FDWs and FDP families are: 5.3.7 • o Home Visit o Creative workshop o Pulong Home Visit Home visit was perceived by the FDWs as the most effective strategy. o “Provides a human and personal touch in addressing issues” (FDP Teams) o “Families feel valued or important because you visit them which means a lot to the poorest of the poor” (FDP Teams) • The FDP family appreciates the home visit “Nabati namo nga importante mi kay kanunay sila mobisita namo” (We feel important because they are constantly visiting us). (FDP Family) “Niapil kay nakatabang ang ilang pagbisita sa pag pagaan sa problema tungod sa ilang mga tambag” (I joined the program because their visits have helped in easing my problems through their advices). (FDP Family) “Naka uyon nga bisitahon. Para pod nay masultihan sa problema. Basin pa diay naa silay matabang o mahatag advice” (I appreciate the HV because I can unburden my problems. Maybe the FDWs can help or give advice.) (FDP Family) 94 5.3.8 • Creative Workshop Considered by almost all FDP families as the most effective. They associate the program with the creative workshop. “Lingaw ang CW, makabalo mi mobuhat og toys. Dili diay kinahanglan paliton” (I enjoyed the CW. We (parents and children), learned how to make toys. I learned that I do not have to spend money for toys). (FDP Family) “Ma-enjoy ko sa ilang exercises sa creative workshops. Imbis magkusmod, magkatawa ko. Biyaan nako akong labhanan. Malipay ko mag-tan-aw sa mga bata nga magkanta ug magsayaw” (I enjoyed the activities. Instead of feeling sad, they make me laugh. I even left my laundry just to attend. I enjoyed watching the kids sing and dance) (Non FDP Family) • Mothers admitted that they enjoyed the activities; they feel “young again and they join in the games (mo-apil sa pagdula)” (FDP Families) • Parents and children have the opportunity to bond (FDWs, FDP and Non-FDP Families) • Parents learn that play is important in bringing out the creativity and talent of the child (FDWs, FDP and Non-FDP Families) • FDP families appreciate the fact that they are given certificates at the end of the 6 sessions. Most of those that have participated in the CW displayed their certificate prominently in their homes. As one FDP mother puts it: “Nalipay kaayo ko kay ang akong anak bisan dos anyos pa kahibalo na mo ihap og numbers tungod sa CW. Naa na siya diploma nga ni graduate siya bisan wala pa siya mag grade 1” (I was very happy because my two year old daughter has learned how to recite numbers because of the CW. She even has a diploma (re: certificate) even though she has not started grade 1.) 95 Points to ponder: • The FDP families enjoyed the activities so much that one key informant stated that the 6 sessions are not enough. (bitin ra ang 6 sessions). Their children enjoyed the CW and are always excited to join the games and other activities. One mother said that she bought coloring books and crayons after the sessions because her child wanted to color and draw after participating in the CW. 5.3.9 • Pulong Practical inputs are given to families (FDP Teams) o On dengue. “Nakat-on sa panglimpyo sa palibot para dili modaghan ang lamok” (We learned how to clean our surroundings to prevent mosquitoes from breeding).(FDP family) o On bonding. “Kinahanglan tagaan time ang mga anak” (I learned to spend time with my children). (FDP family) o On illegal drugs. “Dili maayo ang drugs sa panglawas” (Illegal drugs are not good for our health) (FDP family). A FDP key informant admitted using illegal drugs. She said that after attending pulongs she decided to stop taking drugs and think about the future of her family 5.3.10 Oras sa Pamilya • Oras sa Pamilya caters to both FDP and non FDP families alike who require information, referral and counselling. • Can gauge whether families are interested in looking for solutions to their situation (FDP Teams) 96 o 41 of the 50 FDP key informants have been to the OP. Half (22) knew about the OP through the FDWs (informed or invited by FDWs). Half (20 out of 40) went to the OP for referrals while one-third (15 out of 50) went to the OP for counseling. Others went to OP to attend activities such as creative workshop and pulongs. o 23 of the 41 FDP families who went to OP said that their visit to the OP was very helpful as they were able to get referrals (e.g. get medicine as a result of the referrals). They and their children enjoyed and learned something from the visit through the activities conducted at the OP. All of the 23 said that they would certainly recommend OP to their neighbors and friends who needed help such as referrals and so that their friends would be able to learn something. o Nine out of twelve of the non-FDP respondents have visited the OP. Seven of the nine went to the OP for referrals while the other two attended activities like pulongs. Those who were referred by OP said that they were able to get medicines and they would certainly recommend OP to their friends and neighbors. o Referrals “Makatudlo nimo ang center. Mogiya nimo. Bisan note lang asa ka moadto kung naay problema” (The center will guide you. They will give you a note (referring to referral slip) on where to go when you have problems). (Non FDP Family) o Counseling “Adto didto makasulti kung naay problema ug maminaw sa ilang tambag” (I can go there when I have problems and I listen to their advices) (FDP Family) • “Provide venue for FDP families to open up and talk about their problems.” (FDP Teams) 97 “Gagmay kaayo ang balay, walay privacy para makasulti sa ila problems kay naa daghan maminaw.” (The houses of the families are very small and have no privacy. They can not open up on their problems as neighbors can easily listen). (FDWs) • “Provide venue for conduct of activities like creative workshop. Some communities have limited open space where the activities could be held.” (FDP Teams) • Provides or reinforces psychological security. o Most (32 out of 50) of the families who have not visited said that they have no urgent needs that is why they have not gone to OP (wala pay panginahanglan mao wala moadto). But they are grateful that the OP is there because they have somewhere to turn to, in times of need (kun magipit naa kaduolan). Points to ponder: • On referrals, the FDP families cited the following limitations: o Limited resources within the barangay; Barangay health centers (BHCs) do not have enough supply of medicines, doctors and nurses not available at all times; compulsory donation in some cases o Referral to resources outside the community have its limitations- distance; FDP families are poorest of the poor-difficulty in shelling out money for fare; “ang recita kinahanglan bag-o” (the prescription must be recently given by the doctor); schedules of organizations providing assistance (they have their own schedules in dispensing medicines; sometimes the families are not aware of the schedule and went there during off hours). The FDWs as much as possible do give precise instructions to the families (e.g. direction to the location of the organizations providing assistance and their schedule) but still some of the families got confused probably because they are thinking of their problems when the FDWs are giving instructions. 98 As pointed out by the Inter Aide representative, the FDP has a good governance component which is supposed to address some of these issues. FORGE is in charge of the good governance component for the whole consortium and work with the other 3 implementing NGOs (SACMI, VINE and SAMA). The governance aspect and other components of the project were not part of the evaluation, however. As stated in the TOR, the evaluation focus is on the FDP implementation. Nevertheless, when discussion related to governance arises spontaneously during the data gathering in the course of evaluation, the evaluation team does note the trends and or their implications (e.g. limited resources in the BHCs) (please refer to section on impact). The coordinator from the NGO which is implementing the good governance component shared that the main objective of the good governance component is to fast track social services at the barangay level. Budget allocation for barangay LGUs from their share of the Internal Revenu Allotment (IRA) is limited a factor that could explain limited resources at the barangay LGU. Fast tracking of services will still be hampered if the barangay LGU has limited resources to begin with. 5.3.11 FDP as a strategy • The program is effective because: o “The program values family as the basic unit of society which is the best target of empowerment” (FDP Teams) o “The sincerity to work with the poorest of the poor through the program is laudable” (FDP Teams) “Padayon gyud sila sa pagtabang sa mga pobre nga way kadaganan parehas namo.” (They continue helping poor families like us who have no one to turn to.) (FDP Family) 99 “Motabang sila nga maka-recover ka sa problema, dili magpadaog sa problema.” (They help us to recover from our problems, we must not let our problems get us down.) (FDP Family) • The no dole out policy is appreciated by a few families as an indication that the program is sincere to work with them. “Dili man mo-ingon ang programa, paliton ta mo, aron muapil mo namo.” (The program does not offer financial incentive to encourage us to join) “Dili man pud sa tanang higayon kwarta ang kinahanglan.” (Money is not what is needed at all times.) • “They (STePs and Inter Aide) really have strict monitoring which in a way makes you realize that every one who is part of the program is doing their part.” (FDP Teams) Points to ponder: a. Specific indicators per stage/activity and criteria are not clear b. Targets set in the logframe are general as observed by the evaluation team c. Methodology d. Policies e. Tools f. Need of leveling off (terminologies, roles and responsibilities of each NGOs, etc) These are discussed in details below. a. Specific indicators per stage/activity and criteria are not clear • Specific indicators per stage/activity are not clear. While the monitoring tools contain some variables, these do not necessarily answer the objectives of the activity. For instance, the objectively verifiable indicators for home visit mentioned in the logframe include number of 100 families followed up and number of families sustained their improvement. But what is meant by sustained improvement? The objective of the program (pls. refer to logframe) is to improve very deprived families’ overall situation, autonomy and capacity in different fields such as health, education & family welfare. However, before we can sustain autonomy and capacity, what do we mean by capacity? What do we mean by autonomy? • Some indicators can not establish causality between input (from the program) and output/outcome For example, increased in the number of immunized children and increased in the number of women using family planning. The program has a no dole out policy; hence, no direct interventions are given. Families are merely encouraged to have their children immunized or to have their children enrolled. They were given inputs on family planning in the hope that they would adopt modern family planning methods. Thus, it is very difficult to know whether the families went to have their children immunized because of the encouragement of the FDWs, or because the concern was already on their agenda, or as one coordinator pointed out because they got encouragement from other organizations or institutions. The barangay health centers through the barangay health workers are also conducting their own information dissemination. • Criteria are not clear (e.g. enrolment, determining whether light or priority) to the FDWs. The implementing NGOs have different ideas when asked what the criteria for enrolment are, one NGO mentioned that the family must have at least 1 psychosocial issue while another said that they enroll the families even if they do not have a psychosocial issue as long as they have issues on health and education which must be addressed with. For priority, an NGO said that the family must have a life threatening need which must be addressed immediately while another said that the family must have a heavy psychosocial issue. NGOs have different interpretations of what is life threatening. Inter Aide noted that APPs and continuous discussions on cases are conducted to help the FDWs on this matter. Also, the definitions of “light” and “priority” are given in the Family Development Approach Documentation Set to help clarify the matter to the FDWs. The document was distributed early this year. 101 • Categories used are not clear (i.e. phase out ++, phase out+, etc.; level 1, 2, etc. in terms of scoring). The programs definition for phase out ++ is that the families have solved majority of their problems and have gained a level of autonomy. But what is meant by a level of autonomy? How is autonomy measured? The Family Evaluation Form also has mentioned level 1, level 2 and level 3. What is meant by level 1, level 2 or level 3? From the interviews, it seemed that the FDWs are not aware of what these level means. They said “basta motaas ang score sa pamilya ni-improve na ” (as long as the score of the families increased (from Family Evaluation A to B & C) then the families condition has improved). Inter Aide pointed out that these levels (detailed in “Family Evaluation Form”) aim to give an estimation of the level of poverty, according to several socio-economic indicators (housing, health, etc.). b. Targets set in the logframe are very general. (This has been discussed already in the previous section. Please refer to the section on output vs target page 17) c. Methodology • Gathering of data to determine if light or priority. o According to the FDWs, they have difficulty in gathering data because they are not allowed to bring the forms (Family Profile Form, Family Eval Form). During the June 8 validation, the FDWs clarified that it was STePs who emphasized during the trainings that they should not bring the forms. There are many questions and items in these forms. In the absence of the forms, the FDWs have difficulty remembering some of the questions as well as the answers (e.g. names of children, age). It took them several visits before data gathering is completed. Some FDWs admitted that Family Evaluation Form A was completed only when the home visit began. Would this not affect the scoring? This question was raised because by then the FDWs would have started the intervention. The Inter Aide representative clarified that the FDWs are not disallowed to bring the forms, but that they are informed that it is not advisable, to avoid making the families feel they are being controlled or evaluated. Further, the FDWs are allowed to carry small notebooks where they can write some numerical important data (birthdates, names, etc). However, some FDWs pointed out that they are discouraged to jot down information 102 during the HV itself. The FDWs write down the information on the notebook after HV. What if the family they are visiting have 8 family members? Are they supposed to memorize their names, birth dates, and other basic information? Inter Aide also clarified that data gathering is supposed to take several visits. A Family Development Approach Documentation Set has been disseminated early this year and will be discussed with the FDWs to clarify some points. o One coordinator explained that the reason why the FDWs are not allowed to bring the form is because there are sensitive questions in the form which should not be seen by the families (e.g. if any family members have been abused). During the June 8 validation, one of the participants pointed out that the Family Profile Form and Family Evaluation Form is part of the data gathering process. Hence, the FDWs should be allowed to bring the forms. As to sensitive issues mentioned in the form, she suggested that the tools be redesigned or leave the filling up of the sensitive portion of the form when the FDWs are in the office. Besides, the program needs to be transparent. The families should know that the program is gathering data about them. As it is, the families are unaware that the program has data on them. o According to the FDP families, they have difficulty recalling issues that have been discussed with the FDWs. However, they can recall advices. Nakalimot (we have forgotten) was the usual answer given by the families when asked about issues which they have prioritized at the beginning of the HV. With nothing tangible to look at and with shifting priorities (the priorities of the families may change day to day depending on immediate need), it is understandable that some issues mentioned at the beginning of the HV may be pushed to the back. But in practice, the FDWs do discuss the problems and objectives during the HVs. The FDWs agreed that it is difficult to have the families recall the issues/concerns that they have discussed in the initial stages because the families do not have a copy of what they have discussed initially. 103 • Home Visit o Work load of 32 families is very heavy for the FDWs (except for ECCD specialist who has a work load of 15 families per area); they have to visit 5 to 6 families in a day, (sometimes 7 to 8 families when the program started phasing out families); o 5-6 families to be visited each day on a consecutive schedule does not provide for “decompression” FDWs reveal that they do conduct home visits consecutively without any breaks in between, especially when families are phased out because they have to visit them as well, on top of their regular case load. They have no time to process their feelings or to unload some of the stress especially if the family they have just been visiting have been sharing psychosocial issues. Inter Aide commented that the APPs are conducted to provide FDWs decompression. However, the FDWs disagreed. They said that the APPs do not really serve as a venue to unload stress as it is more focused on case management (how they manage the cases). A few even said that the APP adds to their level of stress as they feel like their performance is being evaluated. A coordinator explained that it is a matter of time management. If they know how to manage their time then they would be able to have breaks in between visit as home visit is supposed to last from 30 to 45 minutes only. One participant during the June 8 validation however observed that it would be difficult to set a time limit on each visit. The first 10 minutes of the visit alone is taken up on greetings and updating/news on the families. What if midway through the visit the mother you are visiting started crying when sharing her problems? What if she does not stop after 45 minutes? o FDWs time is taken up on recording as FDWs are discouraged from bringing anything or to take notes during HV. The Inter Aide representative said that FDWs can have a small notebook or take note after the HV. While the FDWs are allowed to bring notebook and pen during HV, they seldom have time to transfer their notes to the HV form as the home visits are consecutive. Notes are transferred to the HV form when they went back to the office. FDWs confided that it is unavoidable that they forget the details sometimes. Some FDWs commented ‘makalimot gyud usahay sa uban’ (we sometimes forget things). 104 o Presence of technical people while valuable in helping FDWs interpret the case later, at times creates an uncomfortable feeling; FDWs opines: “i gisa na sad ta sa mantika” (we will be grilled again) when ever a technical staff is present. • Oras sa Pamilya o Oras sa Pamilya are opened for 2 hours a day for 4 days a week (1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the afternoon) o Confusion as to services of Oras sa Pamilya. Associated with creative workshop and other activities as some NGOs conduct activities in the center o FDP families observed that referrals are very limited because there are no direct interventions only endorsements to service(s) elsewhere. Endorsement is good if the barangay‘s social services program is fully functional. If the barangay’s social services programs are not fully functional, at least other organizations/institutions are operating within the barangay or within walking distance from the barangay since the families are the poorest of the poor and have limited resources to ask for services outside the community. “Murag kulang ang serbisyo. Mo-endorse ra man gud. Pero okay sila sa mga advices.” (I feel that the services are not enough. They just endorse us to other organizations. Their advices are helpful though.) (FDP Family) o Difficult to follow up on progress of non FDP families. For referrals, they are supposed to return a portion of the referral slip but some do not return the slip. FDWs sometimes follow up the non FDP families when they chance upon them when they conduct home visit on FDP families. 105 d. Policies • No dole out policy o While the objective of the “no dole out” policy is noble, we believe there are limits to the poorest of the poor’s capacity. Example, some referrals given to the families at OP are not followed through because of distance; lack of fare; their livelihood is affected as sometimes it takes one whole day just to get medicine from the organizations providing assistance as there are a lot of people also asking for medicines, etc. o What can FDWs do when they encounter emergency situation or cases? For example, if the mother the FDW is interviewing has fainted and needed to be taken to the hospital but the family has no money? Should the FDW just look and do nothing? This is a common example expressed by the FDWs. Though they have not encountered such a situation they are thinking proactively and still grappling with the dilemma as no concrete solution has been offered by the technical staff. The Inter Aide representative noted that it has been Inter Aide’s experience on different countries (including the Philippines) that giving money or material support to the families, even in case of emergency, will ruin the relationship that has carefully been built between the FDWs and the families. It also goes against the objective of FDP which is the family’s autonomy. o While the FDWs are expected to deal with the beneficiaries strictly on a professional basis, the guidelines must be spelled out and discussed with the concerned. Otherwise, the FDWs sometimes find themselves in awkward situations when FDP families voluntarily show gestures of courtesy such as offering water or snacks/refreshments or use of umbrella when a FDW is caught in the rain. Such courtesies reflect the interpersonal nature of Philippine culture. The need to have and maintain smooth interpersonal relation on the one hand, and the need to act professionally on the other hand, which are oftentimes, interpreted by Filipinos as impersonal, pauses a challenge to the FDWs as they are the ones who deal with the FDP or non FDP families daily or weekly on a person to person basis. There is a need to clarify these policies because the FDWs continue to struggle with these issues. Inter Aide suggests that the Filipino code of ethics for social work may provide a basis for discussion. 106 o Staff turn-over in both Inter Aide and STePs have added to the confusion. A staff might say that this is what the FDWs should do or not do. On the other hand, once a staff is replaced, the new one would give another instruction or standard. In the filling out of the Creative Workshop Form, for example, a FDW omitted those questions which do not apply per instruction of the technical staff at the time. For instance, if the family she was interviewing has no children 4 year old or above, then she omits those questions intended for 4 years old and above. But when there was turn over of staff, the new staff called her attention and informed her that she should not omit those questions. Another example is during creative workshop where one technical staff instructed the ECCD specialist to place all the materials (toys, etc.) on the table before the activities start. When a new staff came, the ECCD specialist was informed that she should not place the materials beforehand because it is disruptive as the children played with the toys before the activity even started. e. Tools o The tools do not provide an assessment of the program or the activities which they are supposed to monitor. STePs though is in the process of updating or revising the tools. o Duplication of questions asked in some tools. Similar data are gathered in the Part III of the Community Profile Form, the Family Profile Form and the Family Evaluation Form seems to result in waste of time and resources (For example family income, number of dependents). o Community Profile Form – Some questions/categories are lumped together. Example: presence of NGOs and other school orgs; under access to health services alternative medicine and health center are lumped together – Ratings assigned per category. Example: violence (gangs) is given a higher rating (1) than drug addiction (2). Is drug addiction a lesser problem than gang violence? Which comes first? Inter Aide asked how the Philippine law rates this, which is considered worse? As provided by Philippine laws, sanctions to violence depend on the severity of the crime committed. Legally speaking, there must be some 107 assumptions regarding the types and degrees of violence. However, in actual application of laws in concrete situations, what threatens the community is perceived by the people as the most severe. Therefore, the idea that “gang violence is worse than drug addiction” is relative depending on the context and circumstances in the community. What if the community is drug infested? In the words of one FDW:”what if drug is the main business in the community?” While drug addiction and selling drugs are not the same, what the FDW is driving at is that if the main business of the community is drugs, then drug addiction would also be rampant in the community. Rather than comparing the different types of violence, one participant during the June 8 validation suggested that the program should just take note of the absence or presence of violence (i.e. gangs, drugs) in the area. o Family Profile Form – Space given for family action plan (issues and concerns of the families) is not enough. It is difficult to determine which issues have been identified by the family and which by the FDWs. No space for details. o Family Evaluation Form – It offers basic information to determine primary changes in terms of behavior but it does not gauge whether the families have been capacitated in terms of identifying and prioritizing issues which is the main objective of the project. While it gauges the progress of the families in terms of improvement in behavior especially parent-child and husband-wife relationship, the questionnaire does not capture the specific issues identified by families, plan(s) made to address the issues, appropriate actions undertaken and the progress and/or results. Categories such as phase out ++, phase out + cannot be determined based on the results of the Family Evaluation Form A, B and C alone. For this, the FDP teams conduct a phase out deliberation discussion. However, there are no records or minutes of these discussions. Therefore, we could not do any content analysis of documents which are non-existent. Given the circumstance, this would require another study altogether. 108 – Some questions may not apply (e.g. Husband wife relations - what if the respondent is a widow/widower or separated?) o Creative Workshop (Pre and Post) and Observation Notes – Some of the terms used in the creative workshop form are not fully understood (e.g. heart to heart talk “Do you sometimes take time to talk heart t heart to your child”). – Similar to the Family Evaluation Form, the Creative Workshop Form Post (which uses the same questionnaire as the Pre) may gauge in some level behavior change but does not fully capture the impact of the activities. Again the question of causality. Whether the behavior change is due to the activities cannot be determined by the Post Test Tool. It does not address the objectives of the CW. – Purpose of pre and post test not properly understood by FDW; the results are not used to assess behavior change. Basta gi-require ra sa pag fill-up (We are just required to fill up the form). FDWs rely on their observation notes. – The observation form is useful according to the FDWs as they are able to observe actual behavior change in the participants. But there is confusion on the terminologies used (e.g. the mother look at the child – not at all, a little or a lot). How do you gauge a little or a lot? FDWs give different answers such as ‘a little’ means 12 times. Another answered that it means 3-4 times. Another question that the FDWs found difficult is ‘do you think that the child is a victim of abuse/neglect?’. The FDWs said that they just answered NO because it is difficult to know just by observation if the child is abused. Some FDWs who filled out this portion said that they filled it up not based on observation but on information gained from neighbors before the CW was conducted. o Home Visit Form – Difficult to segregate issues that have been identified and prioritized by the families at the beginning of the program and those that were observed by the FDWs. 109 – Difficult to monitor status or progress of the families. One has to read from beginning to the end of the case folder before getting some sense of the progress of the family. – o Difficult to see if the action plan filled up at the beginning was met. Phase out Form – For the phase out process -), the FDP teams rely not only on the Family Evaluation Form (A, B & C) but also on the result of the phase out deliberation discussion where the teams discuss the issues identified by the families. As stated previously, the Family Evaluation Form do not fully reflect the issues and concerns identified and prioritized by the families hence the phase out deliberation discussion. STePs did develop a phase out form (the NGOs are referring to it as Form 2) which helped in drawing out the issues and concerns identified by the families but the form was introduced only in June last year. Only two NGOs started using the form during the 4th quarter of last year. The other two started using the form only in 2009. Hence, the difficulties in conducting document study using this form. – The phase out report submitted by the implementing NGOs to Inter Aide on the status of phase out families does not fully reflect the results of the phase out deliberation discussion. This again stems from the lack of specific indicators. As stated previously, the reporting was very general such as solved, partially solved, unsolved. 5.3.12 FDP Teams • The FDP teams are very dedicated and fully committed to make a difference. This is shown by their detailed implementation of activities in the effort to engender change in the families. • Their efforts are fully appreciated by the community. “Naa sila kanunay, andam motabang namo kun makaya nila” (They are always there for us, ready to help us if they can). (FDP Family) 110 “Nakat-un sa kaugalingon sa pagbarug tungod sa pag-tukmod ni FDW2” (I learned how to stand up on my own due to encouragement from FDW2) (FDP Family) “Kahibalo na modala sa problema tungod sa mga advice ni FDW3.” (I learned how to handle my problems because of the advices given by FDW3) (FDP Family) “Sa tambag ni FDW4, madasig ka, dili ka mawad-an og paglaum.” (Through FDW4’s advice, I was encourage not to give up hope). “Maminaw sa ila advice kay mura na man nako inahan si FDW5.”(I listened to their advices especially FDW5 as she is like a mother to me already). (FDP Family) “Tungod sa ilang advice, ako gipa-enrol ang mga bata. Ang kinamanghuran gi-enrol sa daycare. Sa sunod tingklase mo grade one na siya.” (Through the FDWs advices, I enrolled my children in school. The youngest was sent to daycare. By next school year, she will be in grade one). (FDP Family) “Kabalo na modala sa mga bata ug mas nakasabot sa mga bata tungod sa mga advices ni FDW6.” (I learned how to handle and understand my kids better through FDW6’s advices) (FDP Family) 5.6 • Impact Initially, it was difficult to determine the impact due to the lack of specific indicators and absence of outcome in the existing reports that were studied. The evaluation team spent a great deal of time drawing out the indicators from the implementors. For the same reason, the evaluation protocols were so designed to establish outcome and impact once the indicators are spelled out. (Please refer to Tables 8, 11 and 13). 111 • There are two considerations in discussing impact: o A question of coverage and reach. Regarding coverage, how many of the population in the community have been reached? And how many of families identified during community and family profiling have been covered by the program? According to the community profiling methodology 15% of the population of an area must be included in the survey to determine whether an area qualifies for FDP. The Inter Aide representative stated in the June 3 validation that the 15% was based on Inter Aide’s experience in the Philippines, India and Madagascar. The program managed to reach an average of 24% of the poorest of the poor in each area. o 5.4.7 Have majority of the FDP families sustained progress over time? Sustaining Progress Based on the interviews from the FDP teams, the following are some signs that the families have sustained progress. o Recognizing, taking action and managing the concerns and issues of the family o Families continuing to achieve their objectives, and/or adjust plan if necessary and take action o Continuing to access health care services without referral o Regular monitoring of health condition of family members o Improving health condition of family members o Family members participating in decision making of the family when the need arises o Spending quality time with children o Being able to send children to school and children attending school regularly o Having permanent employment to support the family o Having time for wholesome recreation But whether this has been attained is difficult to say. As one coordinator said it usually takes 3 or 4 years for change to show. Besides, there are many factors that might hamper the families from sustaining the changes. As one key informant from the community said “dili ko 112 mo saad ma padayon nga dili na mi magkanunay away sa akong bana kay depende sad na sa akong bana. Kun mopadayon siya pag-bag-o di maayo.” (I can not promise that my fights with my husband will not resume as it also depends on the attitude of my husband. If he continues to be good, then the change can be sustained). 5.4.8 Palpable signs of direct impact Based on the outcomes, the following are palpable signs of direct impact: o o o FDP families are capacitated √ Identifying, analyzing, prioritizing and making plans to solve their problems √ Accessing resources, external and internal √ Participating in family decision-making √ Information and awareness of issues √ Enhancing life skills (e.g. parenting, budgeting) √ Cultivating self-esteem Sense of autonomy in problem solving fostered among FDP families √ Able to identify and prioritize their problems, make plans and decide as a family √ Able to tap services of agencies and institutions without referrals √ Able to transcend feeling of helplessness Health √ Improvement in child and maternal health (immunization, deworming, pre-natal and post-natal) √ o Cleaner surroundings in respective home Family Relationship/Welfare √ Improved family relations – Parents are more aware of their roles and responsibilities – Improved communication between parents and children – Relationship between children and parents strengthened 113 – o Harmonious relations between husband and wife are emerging Education √ Pre-schoolers are better prepared to attend formal schooling – Pre-school children learn skills (drawing, writing, reciting numbers and the alphabet) 5.4.9 Signs of unintended Impact The following are impacts which might be unintended but is clearly visible. Inter Aide noted that these are positive impacts. o Psychological security experienced by FDP women √ Able to unburden/share their problems √ Know where/whom to run to when they are overwhelmed by problems 5.4.10 Signs of Indirect Impact The project has a good governance component. FORGE is in charge of the good governance component for the whole consortium and work with the other 3 implementing NGOs (SACMI, VINE and SAMA). Key informants from the NGOs who are not implementing the good governance component directly observed the following signs: o o Improving LGU governance at the Barangay Level in project sites √ LGUs more responsive in terms of providing social services to families √ Barangay service delivery enhanced by networking and partnership Safer community √ Decrease in gang wars and other forms of violence 114 5.4.11 Potential Impact (Indirect) o Database for Planning and Programming at the Barangay Level √ Community profiling for benchmarking √ Family needs assessment makes target identification and program intervention more focused The FDP teams revealed that data from the community profiling has been given to the barangay in the hope that the barangays would be able to use the data for their planning and programming. 5.4.12 Potential Impact (FDP Families) o o Functional and strong families √ Sharing of roles and responsibilities as members of the family √ Every member being able to make their own decisions and stand on their own Increase in literacy rate among children √ Increase in the number of children who completed elementary √ Increase in number of high school graduates √ Increase in number of OSY attending or completing ALS Table 13. NGO Perception of Impact Stage(s)/ Activities A. Overall Impact • • Formation of harmonious and strong families (1) Families are empowered o Families more aware of issues and problems (information input) (1) o Families more confident and proactive in terms of problem solving/more able to manage their affairs (families learned how to handle and solve problems) (2) 115 Table 13. NGO Perception of Impact Stage(s)/ Activities Impact • • • • • • • • o Families access resources without assistance from FDWs (3) o Families are more resourceful (in terms of accessing services) Families are accessing services from the barangay (whereas before they do not ask for services from the barangay) (1) o Families learned life skills (i.e. capacitated to solve problems on their own) (1) o Families participate in barangay activities (e.g. BCPC, BDP) (2) o FDP families shared what they have learned with non-FDP families (1) Improved living conditions of families (e.g. cleaner homes, family members talk to each other, families learn to budget) (1) o Number of broken families decreased because family members are aware of rights and responsibilities (i.e. resulting from better husband and wife relations) (1) o Children are less neglected as parents are becoming aware of their roles and responsibilities (1) o Multiple burden of the mother decreased as family members understood their respective role and responsibilities (1) o Individual family members more confident in expressing their views and opinions (1) Improved conditions in the community resulting from behavior change of community members due to application of inputs (e.g. minimized misconceptions on deworming, family planning, etc.) (2) o Safer community due to decrease in gang wars and other forms of violence (2) o Community aware of laws (e.g. RA 9344) and more careful with their actions (1) Partnership forged with barangay LGUs and other institutions (2); barangay service delivery enhanced o Improved child care services like feeding, deworming, and Vit. A supplementation at the barangay level (1) o Continuing support from the barangay LGUs (1) o FDP families are prioritized for job placement by barangay staff (1) Realization from the barangay LGUs that program can be implemented with limited or without budget (1) Mobilized barangay’s capacity to extend resources to constituents “wala na political bias” (1) Services delivery at the barangay level improved (1) Realization from the BLGUs that partnership and networking is important (1) Replication of FDP activities (e.g. creative workshop and playgroup) by the barangay LGU (1) 116 Table 13. NGO Perception of Impact Stage(s)/ Activities Impact Support system established among FDP families after phase out (1) • Phased out families in 2 areas volunteered to assist other families in need in the barangay in coordination with the barangay (1) B. FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/Activities • Home Visits • Achievement of family project due to active involvement of Phased-out and FDP members in PPT(1) • LGU more responsive in terms of providing social services to the families (1) • • Oras sa Pamilya • • • Pulongs • • FDP families can unburden themselves when they have problems (4) Some FDP families encouraged non-FDP members to avail of the Oras sa Pamilya (1) Families are capacitated to solve their problems (1) Few families have attained some level of autonomy in terms of accessing services and improving husband-wife/parent-child relationship Better communication and family relations particularly between parents and children (0-6 years) • Strengthened relationship between children and parents (1) • Creative Workshop (0-6 years old) • Play groups (3-7 years old) • • Parent-Teen Session • Improved communication between parents and teenagers C. Specific Issues Addressed By FDP • Health • Healthier and cleaner environment for the families in their respective homes (1) • Barangay health services strengthened (NGO4) • Better partnership promoted with the BHC (NGO4)) o BHWs’ regularly follow-up priority families referred by the FDWs (NGO3) • Education • Increased rate of children enrolled in pre-school (2) o Promote • Decreased incidence of children dropping out of school (1) preschool, • Created better partnership with barangay day care centers (1) Elementary & • LGU in Soong put up another pre-school in response to the need even HS for more educational facilities (NGO1) education 117 Table 13. NGO Perception of Impact • Stage(s)/ Activities Family relationship/ welfare • Other family issues Impact • VAWC has become a public issue; VAWC law is strengthened in 3 areas with the help of GAD and in coordination with Bantay Banay group in Mambaling (NGO3) • Continuing coordination with social workers from DSWS,DSWD and IJM) to monitor phased-out families with special problems (i.e., mentally challenged mother,3rd degree malnourished child, prostituted/ trafficked children and legal adoption of child ) (NGO3) D. Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community • Family Phase-out • 45% of the FDP priority families have easier access to basic assessment & social services provided by the 3 barangays (even without the evaluation presence of the FDWs accompanying them) (NGO3) discussion 118 6.0 • RECOMMENDATIONS NGOs, STePs and InterAide to sit down together as a consortium to level off on the indicators, targets, methodology, tools, and policies. Taking off from the findings of this evaluation, it is suggested that the consortium seeks the services of an external facilitator who understands the project, so that the members can iron out specific issues and concerns related to the above. • The following are some examples of specific indicators that the evaluation team have drawn out from the implementors based on the key informant interviews and which could be used as a starting point for discussion on future directions of the program. Suggested indicators for the phase out deliberation discussion based on the implementors interviews: o Families that are able to identify, analyze and prioritize issues (health, education, family relationship) o Families that are able to make plans to solve their problems Issues solve (e.g. 80% of the issues that have been identified and prioritized) o Families that are able to access resources (external and internal) Families that can tap agencies and institutions without referrals o Families wherein the family members are able to participate in family decision-making o Families that are more aware of issues /concerns because of inputs during HV o Families that have applied what they have learned Families that have enhanced their life skills − Families that have applied skills on parenting Families who spend more quality time with children (e.g. playing, bonding) 119 Families whose child rearing skills have improved (e.g. bathing their children, changing their clothes) − Families that have applied skills on home management Number of families with cleaner homes and cleaner surroundings Number of families who have learned budgeting Health − Families who received inputs have their children immunized (FDWs) − Families who received inputs on proper nutrition and who were referred to feeding programs have applied the inputs and taken their child(ren) for feeding resulting in the decrease in the number of malnourished children − Families who received inputs have their children dewormed (FDWs) − Mothers who received inputs have availed of prenatal in the barangay health centers (FDW ) Education − Scholarships given to FDP families FDP families whose children have sustained the scholarship (i.e. continued their schooling) Families who received encouragement sent their children to pre-school Families who received encouragement sent their children to elementary Family Relationship/Welfare − Families whose family relations have improved Families where parents are more aware of their roles and responsibilities towards children ∗ Families who use to neglect their children now give them attention Families whose relationship between children and parents strengthened ∗ Families where communication has improved between parents and children ∗ Families where verbal abuse towards children have been minimized ∗ Families where physical abuse towards children have been minimized 120 Families where harmonious relations between husband and wife are emerging ∗ Families where communication between husband and wife has improved ∗ Families where fights between husband and wife have been minimized, if not stopped ∗ Families where physical abuse towards spouses have been minimized, if not stopped ∗ Families where verbal abuse towards spouses have been minimized, if not stopped Suggested indicators for the 6th month of the phase out transition period based on the implementors interviews: o Families that continue to take action and manage the concerns and issues of the family o Families that continue to achieve their objectives, and/or adjust plan if necessary and take action o Families that continue to access health care services without referral o Families that regularly monitor the health condition of family members o Families wherein decision making with family members has been institutionalized (i.e. meaning that family members are consulted) o Families where open communication between spouses continued o Families where parents continue spending quality time (i.e. playing, teaching) with children o Families where parents send their children to school 121 o Families where children continue to attend school regularly The list is not exclusive. The implementors still need to sit down and agree which of these are really relevant for their work and to provide additional details or refinements to these indicators. • Regarding criteria and categories, the criteria has been defined in the FDP Documentation Set which was disseminated early this year. But the 4 implementing NGOs and STePs still need to sit down and discuss to make sure that they have common understanding of the terminologies used. Like for example “Families who mainly need information and limited guidance” --- what is minimum of guidance still needs to be clarified. • Oras sa Pamilya (OP) o The OP has more than met the target of >700 families set in the logframe. The output exceeded the target by 87%. But the services of the OP could still be improved. At present, OP is open only 2 hours a day (1 hr in the morning and 1 hr in the afternoon) for 4 days a week. The limited number of visitors could be explained by the schedule. The schedule may not be convenient for the families; they might have other activities or chores at the time; they might still be looking for money for their fare; a mother might still be looking for a neighbor who is willing to look after her children when she goes out, etc. One recommendation is to review the schedule among the implementers and the communities. o Rather than focus on referrals which according to community members (FDP and non FDP families) are limited in the sense that these are endorsements to service(s) elsewhere as no direct services/interventions are provided, the OP can focus on strengthening its counseling and information assistance aspect. o Make the services clear to the community as they often confused the center with the activities (pulong, creative workshop) that are conducted there. Maybe a comics-like brochure explaining the services would make it clear to the community what the services of OP are. 122 • Redesign tools to be able to address the objectives of the activities/program. o For identification of whether a family will qualify as FDP or not, a family survey should be conducted which is the case. But data gathering should be streamlined by integrating Part III of the Community Profile Form, the Family Profile Form and the Family Evaluation Form. o The Home Visit Form must capture both the concerns raised by the family on the issue being discussed and the inputs given by the FDWs. It must be able to follow the progress/changes of the family on a monthly basis so that it would be easy to keep track what issues/concerns have not been met. The evaluation team has developed a HV form which will be attached to the report. The form has been validated by the FDWs during the June 8 validation. The form is just an example and could be used as take off point for the 4 implementing NGOs, STePs and Inter Aide in revising the forms currently used. Of course, STePs and Inter Aide will have to go over it for technical inputs (Please refer to Appendix N). o The Creative Workshop form (for pre and post the same questionnaire is used) while good at establishing initial data on the behavior of the child and the parents, does not gauge the impact of the activity on the behavior of the child/parents. It would be better if another questionnaire or tool be developed that will specifically gauge the impact per activity on the behavior of the child/parent and whether this has been translated into behavior change. Again, the question of causality. Inter Aide clarified that the activities are only pretext: molding, drawing, pasting, etc. are only designed to provide an opportunity for the parent & child to do something together. The aim is to foster the parent-child relationship. It does not seek to assess the effect of the activity upon the child, only the indirect effect on the parent-child relationship. Still, the Creative Workshop Form Post does not gauge the indirect impact of the activity on the parentchild relationship. o A report card showing the issues/needs identified and prioritized and showing the progress of the families would make the program more tangible to the beneficiaries and would allow them to appreciate improvement(s) in their status. There are sensitive 123 issues though which could not be reflected on the card (e.g. abuse). As such, the card should include only those issues/needs that do not involve delicate matters. The families do appreciate something tangible as can be seen by their appreciation of the certificates that they received during CWs. • Assess the workload of the FDWs. While the FDWs are very professional and committed, the heaviness of the caseload especially when the phase out started might stress out even the most dedicated FDWs. It must be noted though that there are other categories of staff aside from the FDWs which are essential for the program to work. Trainings on stress management, etc, have also been conducted to help the FDWs process their workloads. Yet, this issue kept cropping up during the evaluation. Hence, the need to assess the FDWs case loads. • Monitor phase out families and document them systematically so that future evaluation can be more conclusive about the impact of the program. • Flexibility. Allow the individual NGOs to innovate, then share best practices so that other NGOs may adopt or adapt. There have already been innovations, it is just a matter of sharing and discussing these innovations. Sharing of what works and what does not work will surely enrich the program. The consortium is doing this already during the coordinators’ meeting conducted every month. • Localize the strategies taking into account the Filipino culture (interpersonal). Lastly, • Focusing directly on the family is good but family and community come hand in hand together. As expressed by one key informant: “the family does not exist in a vacuum”. While addressing the needs/issues of the families, it is important not to forget the needs/concerns of the community as a whole. The program has in some ways addressed this through pulongs but the intervention is limited. As one FDP family observed: 124 “Bisan unsaon namo og panghinlo sa sulod sa balay kung ang gawas namo hugaw lang gihapon, magkasakit lang gihapon sama sa dengue” (no matter how we clean our houses, if our surroundings remain filthy, then diseases like dengue continue to plague us.) The mother has attended pulongs on dengue and sanitation. But as she observed no matter how they clean their respective homes and surroundings, the filth and garbage remained as the community lacked decent housing and spaces for sanitary toilet, bathrooms, etc. The evaluation team suggests that dovetailing the program work with that of NGOs whose focus is on community organizing would create a much greater impact. 125 References: A. Documents Alexandra David, Urban Programme: The Family Development Approach, July 2005, http://www.interaide.org/pratiques EU Evaluation Report 2009 FDP Annual reports for 2007 and 2008 FDP Log frame FORGE quarterly report 2007& 2008; FORGE annual reports 2007 & 2008 Garcia, Evelyn, Dacalos, Portia and Garcia, Peter. Evaluation Report of the Family Development Program Co-Implemented by Share a Child Movement, Inc and Inter Aide Log frame prepared by Inter Aide, monthly as well as photo documentation Project proposal submitted to the EU, March 2006 SACMI quarterly report 2007; SACMI monthly report 2008; annual reports 2007 & 2008 SAMA quarterly report 2007& 2008; SAMA annual reports 2007 & 2008 VINE quarterly report 2007& 2008; VINE annual reports 2007 & 2008 B. Interviews Alviola, Marlou, Program Manager, FORGE, April 30, 2008 Baylosis, Ma. Sheila, Coordinator, FORGE, April 30, 2008 Busarag, Crisvic, FDW, FORGE, April 30, 2008 Apuya, Asteria, FDW, FORGE, April 30, 2008 Costales, Felisa, FDW, FORGE, April 30, 2008 Labiste, Lelith, FDW, FORGE, April 30, 2008 Masion, Maripeth, Executive Director, STEPS, April 24, 2009 Macapagal, Alice, Social Worker, STEPS, April 24, 2009 Lavares, Emma, Social Worker, STEPS, April 24, 2009 Tugade, Ruby Jane, Psychologist, STEPS, April 24, 2009 Anseco, Gus Bernard, Psychologist, STEPS, April 24, 2009 Sato, Assumpta, Program Coordinator, SACMI, April 27,- Alfornon, Ma. Lourdes, FDW, SACMI, April 27, 2009 Labrador, Ma. Mirasol, FDW, SACMI, April 27, 2009 Ropimo, Maxima, FDW, SACMI, April 27, 2009 Murillo, Leonor, FDW, SACMI, April 27, 2009 Parame, Erlinda, Executive Director, VINE, April 28, 2009 Cuizon, Estela, Program Coordinator, VINE, April 28, 2009 Sapaom, Jonathan, FDW, VINE, April 28, 2009 Gonzales, Roland, FDW, VINE, April 28, 2009 Mejias, Blenda, FDW, VINE, April 28, 2009 Claveria, Janeth, FDW, VINE, April 28, 2009 Doloricon, Fidelia, FDW, VINE, April 28, 2009 Paquibot, Ma. Lourdes, FDW, VINE, April 28, 2009 Fegarido, Luz, Program Coordinator, SAMA, April 29, 2009 Omadhay, Elisa, Executive Director, SAMA, April 29, 2009 Cubalurey, Miram FDW, SAMA, April 29, 2009 Ursubia, Analyn, FDW, SAMA, April 29, 2009 Liquoyan, Lizter, FDW, SAMA, April 29, 2009 Ngolaban, Gwen, Executive Director, FORGE, April 30, 2009 127