Evaluation of the Family Development Program in Cebu ... - Inter Aide

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 - Alternative Learning System 

APP - Analysis of Professional Practice 

BC - Birth Certificate 

BHC - Barangay Health Center 

BHW - Baranngay Health Workers 

CW - Creative Workshop 

ECCD - Early Childhood Care Development 

EU - European Union 

FDP - Family Development Program 

FDW - Family Development Worker 

FGD - Focus Group Discussion 

FORGE - Fellowship for Organizing Endeavors 

HV - Home Visit 

KI - Key Informant 

LGU - Local Government Unit 

NGO - Non Government Organization 

OP - Oras sa Pamilya 

PTS - Parent Teen Session 

SACMI - Share a Child Movement Inc. 

SAMA - Stop Abuse Minors Association Inc 

STEPS - Suporta Teknika para sa Pag-unlad sa Pamilya 

TB - Tuberculosis 

TOR - Terms of Refernce 

VINE - 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 

1.1 Objectives 2 

2.0 METHODOLOGY 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 Focus Group Discussion 9 

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 Debriefing. 34 

5.2.3 Capacity Building for Implementors 39 

5.2.3.1 Analysis of Professional Practice (APP) 39 

5.2.4. Family Development Services/Activities 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 75 

5.2.5.1 Phase-out 75 

5.2.6 Outcome by Issue 80 

5.3 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 

5.4 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

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 

Page 

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 

Table 7. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Capacity Building Of 

Implementors 

Table 8. Needs and Issues Identified by the FDP Families During Home 

Visit and Actions Taken 

Table 9.1. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development 

Services/Activities (Home Visit) 


Services/Activities (Oras sa Pamilya) 

Table 9.3 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development 

Services/Activities (Pulongs) 


Services/Activities (Creative Workshop) 


Services/Activities (Playgroup and Parent-Teen Session) 

Table 10. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Closing of the Area/ Exit from 

the Community 

Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By 

FDP 

Table 12. Outcome by Issue based on FDP Families Perception 92 

Table 13. NGO Perception of Impact 116 

36 

41 

45 

50 

56 

60 

67 

72 

77 

84

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 1 st 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 

2.2 Ocular Visit 

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 

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 

Psychologist/ 

Program 

Manager 

Coordinators/ 

Social 

Workers 

FDWs Total 

STePs 1 2 2 5 

FORGE 1 1 1 4 7 

SACMI 1 4 5 

SAMA 1 1 3 5 

VIINE 1 1 6 8 

Total 4 3 6 17 30 

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 non- 

FDP 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 

Psychologist/ 

Program 

Manager 

Coordinators/ 

Social 

Workers 

FDWs Total 

STePs 1 1 2 4 

FORGE 1 1 8 10 

SACMI 1 10 11 

SAMA 1 1 3 5 

VIINE 1 1 6 8 

Total 3 2 6 27 38 

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 2 nd 

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

. SACMI 

o Mambaling and Lorega, Cebu City 

o Subangdaku, Mandaue City 

c. SAMA 

o Lorega (phased out) & Carreta, Cebu City 

d. VINE 

o Soong, Lapulapu City (phased out) 

o Labogon, Mandaue City 

3.2 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 

PPT Technical 

Staff for 

Governance 

Total 

FORGE* 1 1 1 6 3 1 3 15 

SACMI 1 1 6 3 1 11 

SAMA 1 1 2 1 4 

VINE 1 1 5 1 7 

Total 4 1 4 19 8 2 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 

4.2.3 Phase out 

• To provide stress debriefing after home visits 

• To assess the activity (other activities) 

• 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 

2007-2008 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 10 th 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 5 th 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 2007-2008, 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 2007-2008. 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 2007-2008. 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 2007-2008 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 2007-2008. 

• 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 

Identification and enrolment of 

families 

Activity Target Output 

• 80 t 82 families per area 

per cycle 

• 30 to 32 families per FDW 

per cycle 

• 1109 families enrolled by the 

4 implementing NGOs (2007- 

2008) 

Case Filing and Recording • 10 case folders a week • 8 case folders or an average 

of 81.5% of case folders a 

week are updated 

Conduct of APP • 1 session per week per • Average of 36 

area or 48 APPs/area/year sessions/area/year 

Debriefing • Regular debriefing • Regular debriefing 

Home Visits 

• At the time of enrolment • 5 to 6 families/FDW • 5 to 6 families/FDW 

• At the time of phase out • 5 to 6 families/FDW • 5 to 6 families(ongoing)plus 2 

to 3 phase out families per 

Oras sa Pamilya • > 700 families based on 

the logframe 

• Freeflowing, no target 

based on FDP team 

interviews 

Pulongs • Once a month per area or 

12 pulongs a year 

• Minimum of 10 to 15 

participants 

Creative Workshop (0-6 years 

old) 

• 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) 

Playgroup (3-7 years old) • 2 playgroup session per 

month or as needed 

• 12 participants per 

Parent-Teen Session (only 1 

NGO implementing) 

session 

FDW 

• 1,313 families served (2007- 

2008) 

o 678 FDP families 

o 588 Non FDP families 

o 47 phase out families 

• Total of 1,484 visits (2007- 

2008) 

• 140 pulongs conducted by the 

4 implementing NGOs (2007- 

2008) 

• 1,852 participants (2007- 

2008) 

• 268 sessions conducted by 

the 4 implementing NGOs 

(2007-2008) 

• Total of 478 families 

participated 

• 29 play group sessions 

conducted by the 4 

implementing NGOs (2007- 

2008 

• As needed • 7 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

Table 5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Opening an Area 

Output Outcome 

Objectives Approaches Targets 

• 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) 

• 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 (2007-2008) 

(NGO4) 

• Meetings with 

barangay chairmen 

(4) 

• Around 680 families 

were interviewed for 

the family profiling 

(NGO4/NGO2)/ 80% 

of target families 

covered (2008) 

(NGO3) 

• 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) 

• Identification of 

target area (Focus 

on high density areas 

with the most 

number of poor 

families where 

almost half of the 

population belong to 

the poorest families) 

(4) 

o Ocular survey 

o Courtesy call 

o Recommendati 

ons from 

BLGUs 

o Networking 

and resource 

mapping (visits 

to existing 

institutions in 

the area) 

• 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/ 

Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• Ocular visit of 

the area 

• Courtesy call 

with barangay 

officials 

28




Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• 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) 

• Evaluation of 

target areas or 

area studies (area 

profile and needs 

assessment) (4) 

o Community 

profiling 

(gathering of 

primary and 

secondary 

data) (4) 

o Area Mapping 

(1) 

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) 

• Community 

survey/ profiling 

(est 15% of total 

number of 

families) 

• Presentation of 

Data 

• Community 

Validation 

• Setting-up the 

Area for 

• 

• 

29




Implementation 

(1) 

o Community 

Project 

Orientation (1) 

Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• Community/ 

project 

orientation 

• Family Profiling 

(4) 

o Individual 

Family Project 

Orientations 

(1) 

o Validation (1) 

• Setting-up of 

field offices (1) 

• To inform the 

families about the 

FDP program and 

services (2) 

• To inform them of 

FDP limitations 

and policies and 

program duration 

(2) 


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) 


gather additional 

information about 

family situation 

and determine 

whether family 

may be enrolled 

in the program or 

not (2) 


• Screening and 

Assessment of 

Family Situation 

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) 

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 nakakat- 

on 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

Table 6. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Proper or Family Case Management 

Objectives Approaches Targets Output Outcome 

Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• Identification 

of Families 

• 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) 

• 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) 

• 81 or 82 families 

per area (additional 

families will be 

enrolled when some 

families are phased 

out) (4) 

• 15 priority families 

per cycle (1) 


(4) 

• Family 

Assessment 

Evaluation 

Discussion (4) 

• To enroll 

families to the 

program (2) 


light and 

priority cases 

(2) 

• To entitle 

them to the 

program and 

services (1) 

• • Families acquired 

skills in problem 

identification and in 

some ways in 

problem 

prioritization (3) 

• 30 to 32 families 

per FDW (4) 

• Home visits 

• Activities like 

pulong, creative 

workshop, etc. 

• To capacitate 

the family so 

that they may 

be able to 

identify and 

prioritize 

problems and 

plan solutions 

to their 

problems 

• 

• Follow-up of 

families 


cases/situation are 

monitored (4) 

36 

• Average of 81.5 

% of case folders 

of all enrolled 

• 685 families (3) 

• 10 case folders per 

FDW per week are 

• Family profiling 

results (3) 

• Summary of 

• To monitor 

and update 

status of 

• Case-Filing & 

Recording



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

families are 

updated (3) 

• 8 case folders per 

FDW per week 

are updated (1) 

updated (1) 

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 

• 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 

• Regular 

debriefings are 

conducted after 

every FDP 

activities (3) 

o 288 debriefings 

for home visits 

(NGO1) 

o 72 debriefings 

for creative 

workshop 

(NGO1) 

o 1 debriefing for 

playgroup 

(NGO1) 

• 1 debriefing after 

each activity (4) 

o 3 times a week 

for home visits (1) 

o Twice a month for 

creative 

workshop (1) 

o Twice a month for 

playgroup (1) 

feelings FDWs 

families (2) 

• To note 

possible 

objectives for 

the next 

week (1) 


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 


• Debriefing 

among 

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 

37



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

observant; FDWs 

able to look at the 

situation 

objectively (3) 

• FDW improved 

skills in conducting 


• 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) 

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) 

38

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

Table 7. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Capacity Building of Implementors 


• • • • Staff are 

capacitated 

• 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 

Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• FDP Staff 

Trainings 

• 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 

• Average of 72 

session per area 

has been 

conducted for 

(2007-2008) (4) 

• 1 session per week 

per area (4) 

• Presentation of 

maximum of 5 

priority 

cases/FDW/meetin 

g (1) 

• Weekly case 

conference (3) 

• FDP case 


• Venue to share 

difficulties and 

weaknesses of 

FDWs for 

improvement 

(2) 

• Conduct of 

Analysis of 

Professional 

Practice 

(APP) 

especially 

• Review and 

analysis of family 

situations/ 

deeper analysis 

of family 

situation, FDWs 

Home-visit 

objectives are 

difficult cases 

(3) 

• To analyze 

the situations 

of families in 

order to 

understand 

their issues 

and provide 

appropriate 

intervention

Table 7. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Capacity Building of Implementors 


Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

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) 

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) 

• To build the 

skills of the 

FDWs in 

problem 

analysis and 

resolution 

• To monitor 

the conduct of 

FDWs (1) 

• To 

recommend 

to FDWs 

strategies on 

handling 

cases (1) 

• To conduct 

stress 

debriefing (1) 

42

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

Table 8. Needs and Issues Identified by the FDP Families During Home Visit and Actions Taken 

Action Plan Action(s) Taken/Result(s) 

Needs and Issues Identified by 

FDP Families during HV 

Health 

Health: 

• 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 

• 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 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





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 

Education 

• Education for children(no money 

to buy school supplies, 

uninterested children)—18 

• 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 

• 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 

Husband-Wife relations 

Husband-Wife Relations 

• 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) 

46 

• 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 (20) 

-jealousy, frequent quarrels, 

domestic violence, irresponsible 

husband, separation, no legal 

marriage; “My husband wanted me 

gone, but I’m not leaving my





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 2 nd wife (the respondent) 

• 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 

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). 

Parent-Child 

Parent-child 

• Problematic children were sent to DSWD 

• Daughter visits them if she has time 

• Daughter came home and stays with family 

• 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 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” 

• Obtained the birth certificates 

• Thru referrals given by FDP, she was able to 

accomplish the required documents for the 

birth certificate of child 

47 

• To process registration (4) 

• To follow up birth certificate (3) 

• Legal documents: Birth 

registration, No marriage contract, 

Correction of entries-10





• BCs not claim due to financial problems (2) 

• Has secured joint affidavit but still has to go to 

NSO 

Livelihood 

• To seek legal advice in UP re marriage 

contract (1) 

Livelihood 

• 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 

• 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/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 

• 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. 

Other issues 

• 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.) 

• Basic necessities like food, 

clothing-3 

• Poor housing conditions 

• Sanitation-drainage problem • To improve drainage and sanitation • Drainage situation improved but not yet totally 

solved. 

• The community has work hand in hand 

48





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 

• To move on and not dwell so much on 

the deceased child 

• Emotional problem: Death of her 

child 

49

Table 9.1 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Home Visit) 


Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• Home Visit 

• Establishment of rapport 

and trust (pagsalig) 

between the families 

and the FDWs resulting 

in families 

wiliness/ability to 

express concerns (i.e. 

few families who are 

timid, secretive or 

resistant are becoming 

more open to express 

their situation (4) 

• Families acquired skills 

in problem identification 

and in some ways in 

problem prioritization (3) 

• Families able to 

understand their 

circumstances and 

situation by identifying 

the root cause of their 

problems (e.g. thru the 

genogram) and achieve 

a certain level of 

autonomy(3); Enhance 

level of awareness of 

families (1) 

o Awareness of their 

own strengths and 

• 4 sitios from 3 

barangays covered 

(2007-2008) (NGO4) 

• 1176 families visited 

(2007-2008) 

((NGO4/NGO3/NGO 

1) 

• 5223 total home 

visits conducted 

(2007-2008) 

((NGO4/NGO1) 

• 177 families visited 

in 2008 (NGO2) 

• 1469 home visits 

conducted in 2008 

(NGO2) 

• 81.8% of the 

families followed-up 

through home visits 

(NGO3) 

• 65 % of the enrolled 

families able to 

prioritize issues & 

come up with action 

plans (2) 

• A total of 521 

referrals done in HV 

(2008) (NGO4) 

o Health referrals: 

• 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 


Soong in 

2007 and 

61 


Labogon 

2008) (1) 

• Discussion , 

prioritization of 

issues/concerns 

per family (4) 

• Coming up with 

a plan of action 

to solve the 

prioritized 

concerns (4) 

• Referrals (4) 

• To gather more 

information about 

the family (2) 


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 

50



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

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) 

51 

443 

o Education: 10 

o Economic: 4 

o psychosocial : 22 

referrals on issues 

o legal document : 42 

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)



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• 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



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

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) 

53

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

Table 9.2 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Oras sa Pamilya) 


Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• Oras sa 

Pamilya 

• 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) 

• 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) 

• 1 

counseling 

center in 

each area 

(open daily, 

8 hours per 

week) (4) 

• No target 

(free 

flowing) 

• Opening of 

counseling 

centers (4) 

• Counseling (4) 


• Remaining 

issues 

expressed in 

OP are 

followed-up in 

Home visits (1) 

• To provide 

information on 

different issues (4) 


guidance and 


• To provide services 

like counseling and 

referral to FDP and 

non-FDP families 

(4) 


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) 

56

Table 9.2 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Oras sa Pamilya) 


Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• 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 


• Families applied 

learnings (1) 

• To provide avenue 

for various issues 

and requests like 

emotional and 

spiritual enrichment 

(e.g. pray over) (1) 

57

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

Table 9.3 NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Pulongs) 


Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• Pulongs 

• Increased knowledge on 

certain issues (health, 

education, etc.) and 

enhanced capabilities in 

responding to identified 

issues and concerns; 

napun-an ang mga 

pamaagi nga angay iapply 

sa pamilya (3) 

o Families gained 

knowledge about 

child rearing and the 

importance of letting 

children play (1) 

o Realization on the 

importance of 

communication (1) 

o Families learned the 

importance of 

education (i.e. 

parents of OSYs 

enrolling their 

children in ALS ) (1) 

o Families understand 

the importance of 

family planning in 

terms of health 

security and income 


• 140 pulongs 

conducted with 

1852 participants 

(4) 

• Inputs on topics 

identified by the 

families/improved 

knowledge base of 

partner families on 

the ff: Topics: Dengue 

Awareness, Proper 

Nutrition, Common 

Ilnesses, Commubicable 

Disease (TB & Hepa), 

mmunisation, STD- 

HIV/Aid, Maternal Care & 

Family Planning, Health & 

Sanitation, Deworming, 

Late Birth Registration, 

Childrens Rights 

(NGO4/NGO2 

• 14 special activities 

conducted 

(Christmas Party, 

Mtg. with fire 

victims, and Forum 

on Anti-Trafficking 

in Persons Act Etc.) 

with 250 FDP 

families, 33 

phased-out families 

and 68 Non-FDP 

families participants 

• 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) 

• Practical inputs 

on selected 

topics (based 

on issues 


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 


families (2) 

• Barangay 

Health Center 

staff are often 

tapped to be 

the resource 

person of health 

related topics 

(1) 


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) 


opportunity to unite 

community on 

specific concerns 

e.g. water 

concerns/ bonding 

time with neighbors 

(2) 

60



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

(NGO3) 

• To give referrals (1) 

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) 

61 

• 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)



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

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 

62



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

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 

63



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

information & are 

now using it. (1) 

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) 

64

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). 


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). 


“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). 


66

Table 9.4. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Creative Workshop) 


• 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) 


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) 

• 1 batch 

every 3 

months 

(4) or as 

needed 

• 5 to 7 

families 

with 

children 6 

years and 

below or a 

total of 48 


a year (3) 


parents 

who 

attended 

the 

workshop 

improve 

their skills 

on ECCD 

and 

parenting; 

violence 

and 

neglect (1) 

• 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) 

• 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 


• To clear up 

Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• Creative 

Workshop 

(0-6 years 

old) 

• 5 mothers brought 

coloring materials 

for their children 

and continued CW 

activities at home 

(NGO4)



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

and time 

management (i.e. 

spending time with 

children thru play, 

child rearing and 

child caring) (3) 


value of children’s 

participation and of 

respecting children’s 

autonomy (1) 


importance of play in 

the lives of children 

(i.e. creates bond, 

play as a form of 

communication) (1) 

o Parents appreciate 

their children’s efforts 

(no matter how small) 

and learned to 

encourage them to 

develop their skills in 

the 5 aspects (1) 

o Parents learned the 

importance of the 

activity and are 

encouraged to share 

what they have 

learned to the extent 

of requesting the 

68 

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)



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

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) 

69



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• 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) 

• 

• 4 sessions 

conducted involving 

7 families (NGO4) 

• 

• • Make-up 

session for 

families who 

were absent 

during the 

actual sessions 

(note: 

ineffective 

because of 

interruptions 

like household 

chores, etc.) (1) 

• Home 

based 

creative 

workshop 

70

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) 


• 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

Table 9.5. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Family Development Services/Activities (Playgroup and Parent-Teen Session) 


• 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) 

• 29 play group 

sessions are 

conducted to 5to 6 

families w/ 12 

children (4) 

• 1 

playgroup 

per month 

with 12 

participants 

aged 3- 

7years 

each 

session or 

as needed 

(2) 

• A minimum 

of 6 

parents to 

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) 

• 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 


• 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) 

Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• Play groups 

(3-7 years 

old) 


composed of 36 

parents and 119 

children participated; 

of the 75, 32 were 

FDP, 26 non-FDP 

and 17 Phasedout 

(SACMI) 

• 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) 

72



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• 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) 

• 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 

• 7 PTS Sessions are 

conducted to 5 

families; 5 parents & 

5 teenagers 

(FORGE) 

• As 

needed 

(1) 


per 

session 

(1) 

• Therapeutic 

activity to raise 

the level of 

awareness 

among 

teenagers and 

parents toward 

improve parentteenager 

relationship (1) 

• Families must 

complete 7 

sessions which 

include 

observation of 

behavioral 

patterns (1) 

• To undertake 

therapy activity 

hoping to improve or 

workout parent-teen 


• 

• To generate 

awareness of issues 

of each other (1) 

• Parent-Teen 

Session 

• For parents to 

understand teens 

and for teens to 

understand their 

parents (1) 

• To know the rights 

of child (1) 

• To know the 

responsibilities of 

parents (1)



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

(1) 

• 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) 

o 13 sessions 

conducted 

involving 362 

participants, 118 

of which are FDP 

beneficiaries 

(2008) (NGO4) 

• 10-12 

children 

per 

session 

(2) 

• Orientations (3) 

o FDP 

o Play group 

orientation for 

parents 

o Play group 

parents 

volunteer 

session 

o Parent teen 

orientation 

o Budget 

• Trainings • To orient the 

families on the 

importance of the 

program or activity 

(3) 

• Parents in some ways 

capacitated to facilitate 

an activity (2) 

74

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). 


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). 


“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

Table 10. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community 


Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• 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 

77 

• 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 

• The number of 

families to be 

phased out 

depends on 

results of 

assessments 

(3) 

• Phase out 

family after 6 

to 10 months 

(1) 

• 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) 

• 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) 


there are 

significant 

changes in the 

families in terms 

of capacity and 


Phase-out 

assessment 

& evaluation 

discussion



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

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 

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 


(2) 

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) 


families are able 

to sustain 

changes (1) 


• Transition 

78



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

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) 

serve more 

families (1) 

• 53% of education 

issues 

successfully 


(2) 

• 45% of family 

relationship 

issues 

successfully 


(2) 

• 37.5% of legal 

documents sues 

successfully 


(2) 

• 38% of economic 

issues 

successfully 

resolved (2008 

(2) 

79

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) 


“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 labing- 

labing 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) 


• 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

Table 11. NGO Performance Matrix by Stage: Specific Issues Addressed By FDP 

Stage(s)/ 

Approaches Targets Output Outcome 

Activities 

• Health • Inputs on Health (4) • • 9 health related topics are • Increased number of families 


discussed in Pulongs 

availing of health services (1) 

• Home-visit (1) 

(NGO4) 

• Families directly access health 

• 36 families were assisted services from the barangay 

on health issues (2008) health centers without asking for 

(NGO2) 

referrals from the FDWs (1) 

• 62.1% efficiently referred o Parents becoming more pro- 

(NGO4/NGO1) 

active in terms of responding 

o 50% of those efficiently to health needs (1) 

referred have availed of • Better health conditions for 

services (NGO1) 

children due to increase 

• 119 families given health number of children immunized, 

referrals (2007) 

dewormed, etc (NGO4) 

(NGO4/NGO1); 272 families • Families able to access health 

given health referrals (2008) services and medicines through 

(4) 

referrals within and outside the 

• 51 families given 

community (3) 

information related to health • Few parents who were 

(2007) (NGO4/NGO2); 75 neglecting the health condition 

families given information of children (fever, cough, 

related to health (2008) allergies etc) or relying on 

(NGO4/NGO2) 

quack doctors are now 

• 2 family assisted for 

regularly coming to BHC & 

medical emergencies 

NGO health provider for free 

(2007) (NGO4/NGO3) 

check-up & free medicines (1) 

• 4 or 2% of families given • Improved awareness on the 

health counseling (2007) importance of being healthy and 

(NGO3)/ 5 families given the importance of sanitation to 

counseling (2008) (NGO1) health (cleanliness in the home 

and personal hygiene) (2) 

83



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• 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 

(2007-2008) (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) 

84 

• 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 


(2008) (NGO3) 

• 10 FDP families given 

intervention on tuberculosis 

(NGO3)



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

o 9 out of 10 of the families 

given intervention on TB 

treated (NGO3) 

• Families understand the value 

of sending their children to 

school; Families motivated to 

find ways to send their children 

to school (2) 

o 100% of the families with 

identified education issues 

has continued providing 

education to their children 

(2008) (NGO3) 

• OSY beneficiaries availed of the 

Alternative Learning System 

(FDP coordinated with the 

Barangay and PTCA of 

Mambaling Night High School) 

(2007) (NGO3) 

o 6 out of school children have 

sustained ALS education as 

a result of FDW referrals 

(NGO4) 

o More than 10 children of 

FDP and non-FDP families 

availed of the Acceleration 

and Equivalency Test for 

OSY (FDP facilitated the 

coordination with the 

barangay and Tierre Sans 

Frontier (2008) (NGO3) 

85 

• • 69 % of families referred 

(2007) (NGO3) or 14 

families referred (2007) 

(NGO4/NGO1); 33 families 

referred (2008) 

(NGO4/NGO2/ NGO1) 

• 80% of families needing 

inputs on education 

received information and 

encouragement 

(2008)(NGO2) 

• 22% of families given 

information related to 

education (2007) (NGO3)/ 9 

families given information 

related to education (2007) 

(NGO4); 2 families given 


education (2008) (NGO4) 

• 79% of the education issues 


(NGO3) 


education counseling 

(2007) (NGO3)/ 1 family 

given education counseling 

(2007) (NGO4); 10 families 

were given counseling 

• 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) 

• Education 

o Promote 

preschool, 

Elementar 

y & even 

HS 

education



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

(2008) (NGO4/NGO2) 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) 

• 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 

• 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 

o Pre-school 

scholarship 

program 

86



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

the ability to sustain 

their educational 

needs (4) 

• 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 

87 

• 90% of FDP enrolled 

families are given 

opportunity to share their 

experiences & relationship 

issues during home visit 

where FDWs do processing 

(NGO4) 


psychosocial referral(2007) 

(NGO4/NGO3) ;20 referrals 

(2008) (NGO4) 


information given 

information on psychosocial 

issues (2007) (NGO4/ 

NGO3/ NGO1); 21 families 

(2008) (NGO4/NGO1) 


psychosocial counseling 

(2007) (NGO4/NGO3/ 

NGO1); 39 families given 

psychosocial counseling 

(2008) (NGO4/NGO2/ 

NGO1) 

• 2 families assisted for 

psychosocial issue 

• 50% 

families 

exposed to 

family 

violence 

reduced the 

frequency of 

domestic 

violence (1) 


parents able 

to help 

teenagers 

reduce 

involvement 

in gangs or 

delinquent 

actions (1) 

• Counseling/Para – 


• Inputs on husbandwife 

and parent-child 


• Trainings (3) 

• Assessment and 

monitoring tools 

developed (1I) 


• Creative Workshop 

(1) 

• Parent-Teen (1) 

• Play Group (1) 

• Home-visit (1) 


relationship/ 

welfare



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

violence (1) 

o Minimized incidence of 

domestic violence in 45 

families (1) 

emergencies (2007) 

(NGO3) 

• 19% of family relationship 

issues successfully solved 

(2008) (NGO3) 

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) 


abuse (physical and verbal) 

in 61 families (NGO4) 


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) 

88 

• • 68 families referred(2007) 

(3) 

• 85 families referred (2008) 

(4) 


information related legal 

documents (2007) (NGO4); 

57 families given 

• Information (4) 

• Access (4) 


• Legal 

documents



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 


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 

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) 

• • 5 families given 

referral(2007) (NGO3); 6 

referrals (2008) (NGO4) 



livelihood (2007) 

(NGO4/NGO3); 5 families 

given information related to 

livelihood (2008) (NGO4) 

• 54% of economic issues 

(i.e., livelihood) successfully 

• Economic • 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



Stage(s)/ 

Activities 

• 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) 

solved (2008) (NGO3) 

• 3 families given economic 

counseling (2008) (NGO4) 

management and 

saving (2) 

• Re-echo the training 

to the beneficiaries (1) 

• 

• 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) 

• • • 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) 

• Other family 

issues 

90

Table 12. Outcome by Issue based on FDP Families Perception 

Before FDP After FDP Changes 

• 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. 

• 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 

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) 

• 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 

• Children sent to school; 

• Found sponsors for education of 

children 

• Plan to re-enroll children under the 

scholarship program of FDP. 

Education 

• Pre-school children has limited 

knowledge (5) 

• Children didn’t go to school (OSY/ 

Child didn’t want to go to school (5) 

Husband-Wife relations 

• 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) 

• 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 

• 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) 

91



• Stopped taking drugs 

• 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 

• 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) 

• 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 

• 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). 

92



like simulated classes (klase-klase) 

• Feel young again as a result of the 

activity 

• Son sent to community school to study 

and stay. 

Family Planning 

• Able to manage family situation 

• Learned the right method of 

contraception 

• Ignorant on birth control; lack 

knowledge on family planning (3) 

Home Management 

• Didn’t know how to budget (5) 

• Disorganized Home 

• 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. 

• Learn how to prioritize needs and to 

budget (3) 

• Mother cleaned the house before 

making lag 

Economic 

• Peaceful family life( mas malinawon 

nga panimuyo) 

• Found regular employment (3) 

• Able to eat three times (2) 

• Situation did not improve ; Still the 

same (Mao ra gihapon, naglisod). (2) 

• Financial instability; lack of stable job 

(4) 

• Lack income; one-day-one-eat (4) 

93

5.5 Assessment of Strategy or Approach 

• Most effective strategies/approaches according to the FDWs and FDP families are: 

o Home Visit 

o Creative workshop 

o Pulong 

5.3.7 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). 


“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). 


“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). 


“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 

o Counseling 

“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) 

“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 mo- 

adto). But they are grateful that the OP is there because they have somewhere to turn to, 

in times of need (kun magipit naa kaduolan). 


• 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) 


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.) 


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 

e. Tools 

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. 

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 1- 

2 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. 

– Difficult to see if the action plan filled up at the beginning was met. 

o Phase out Form 

– For the phase out process (2007-2008), 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 4 th 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

5.6 Impact 

“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) 

• 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 Have majority of the FDP families sustained progress over time? 

5.4.7 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 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 

o Sense of autonomy in problem solving fostered among FDP families 

o Health 

√ 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 

√ Improvement in child and maternal health (immunization, deworming, pre-natal 

and post-natal) 

√ Cleaner surroundings in respective home 

o 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 Education 

– Harmonious relations between husband and wife are emerging 

√ 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 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 

o 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 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 

o 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


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


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 

• Creative Workshop 

(0-6 years old) 

• Play groups (3-7 

years old) 

• Parent-Teen 

Session 

• 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) 

• 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 

• Education 

o Promote 

preschool, 

Elementary & 

even HS 

education 

FDWs (NGO3) 

• Increased rate of children enrolled in pre-school (2) 

• Decreased incidence of children dropping out of school (1) 

• Created better partnership with barangay day care centers (1) 

• LGU in Soong put up another pre-school in response to the need 

for more educational facilities (NGO1) 

117


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,3 rd degree malnourished child, 

prostituted/ trafficked children and legal adoption of child ) 

(NGO3) 

D. Closing of the Area/ Exit from the Community 

• Family Phase-out 

assessment & 

evaluation 

discussion 

• 45% of the FDP priority families have easier access to basic 

social services provided by the 3 barangays (even without the 

presence of the FDWs accompanying them) (NGO3) 

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 

� Health 

� Number of families with cleaner homes and cleaner surroundings 

� Number of families who have learned budgeting 

− 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 

� Education 

centers (FDW ) 

− 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 6 th 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 parent- 

child 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

A. Documents 

References: 

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, 2009 

126

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

Evaluation of the Family Development Program in Cebu ... - Inter Aide

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?