You are on page 1of 76

i|Page

Socio-Economic Situation of Baras, June 2013 Published by Handicap International - Philippines Program under its project Rebuilding Economies after Typhoon Ketsana and Strengthening Baras Municipality Utilities for an Inclusive Local Development (REBUILD). Cover Photo: Alinda Tilaon (middle), Economic Project Holder, 57 years old, single parent from Sitio Malalim, Brgy. San Juan, Baras, Rizal. Her livelihood preference is the enhancement of her food vending. Compilation done by REBUILD Project Mary Grace Baban Maria Conception Penetrante Kahlille Jolly Seranilla Ronald Genise Joecelyn Panlilio Shirley Ferrera Jezzalyn Casinao Racquel Buenaventura Ricky Bello With contributions from Satish Mishra Harisha Varatharajah Diosdado Mendoza Gilbert Guevarra Edward Ello And partners Theresita Salome G. Lloren - Tahanang Walang Hagdanan Editing Florentina Urag Layout Jun Daryl Zamora

Handicap International - Philippines Program, 2013 This publication is the property of Handicap International. It has been produced with the financial assistance of the Swiss Solidarity. The views expressed herein should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of the Swiss Solidarity. For more information and to download a copy of this publication please visit www.handicapinternational.ph.

ii

ABOUT HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL

Handicap International is an independent and impartial international aid organization working in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. Working alongside persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups throughout the world, our action and testimony are focused on responding to their essential needs, improving their living conditions and promoting respect for their dignity and their fundamental rights. With a network of eight national associations (USA, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and UK), Handicap International was founded in 1982 and a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 and the recipient of the Hilton Humanitarian Prize in 2011. It has programs in 60 countries and acts in both emergency and development situations. Handicap International in the Philippines has been operational since 1985 and is one of the key organizations in the disability sector in the country. It has a wide range of complimentary projects which assists to promote inclusion of persons with disabilities and their issues in development policies and actions, build capacities of key local stakeholders and reduce the impact of natural disasters and conflicts. Handicap International in the Philippines is committed to enhance persons with disabilities access to services, promote their active participation and social inclusion, developing partnerships at all levels, in the frame of the national and international policies on disability. Rebuilding Economies after Typhoon Ketsana and Strengthening Baras Municipality Utilities for an Inclusive Local Development (REBUILD) is a threeyear inclusive livelihood and rights-based project with an objective to improve access of persons with disabilities to different developmental (livelihood, social, etc.) opportunities. To complement this effort, the project will build the capacity of local stakeholders to enable them to implement programs and activities that are more inclusive of persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. In addition, the project will build capacity of Baras Disabled Peoples Organization so that it becomes a significant and active local development stakeholder that will promote and advance the needs and rights of persons with disabilities in development initiatives. The project aims to contribute in developing an inclusive society with equal opportunities for all.

iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BFAR BFIPMCI BHW BNS CA DOLE DENR DPO EPH HI IDE LDC LPD MFI MSWDO NSCB PIDS PWD PSS REBUILD

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Baras Farmers Irrigators Multi-Purpose Cooperative Inc. Barangay Health Workers Barangay Nutrition Scholars Candidate Analysis Department of Labor and Employment Department of Environment and Natural Resources Disabled Peoples Organization Economic Project Holder Handicap International Institute of Developing Economies Local Decision Committee Local Planning Diagnosis Micro Finance Institution Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office National Statistical Coordination Board Philippine Institute for Development Studies People with Disability Personalize Social Support Rebuilding Economies after Typhoon Ketsana and Strengthening Baras Municipality Utilities for an Inclusive Local Development Rural Health Unit Traditional Birth Attendants Technical, Education and Skills Development Authority Tahanang Walang Hagdanan United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities World Health Organization Pantawid Pampamilyang Pilipino Program

RHU TBAs TESDA TWH UNCRPD WHO 4 Ps

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations --------------------------------------------------------------------------Glossary -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Background -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Demographic and Socio-Economic Context of Baras --------------------------------The Household Survey ----------------------------------------------------------------------Results of the Household Survey and Candidate Analysis --------------------------The Household Survey Population -------------------------------------------------------The Candidate Economic Project Holders ----------------------------------------------

iv vi 1 4 7 9 9 23

Summary of Key Findings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 Conclusions and Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------- REBUILD Livelihood Strategy 56 43

Annexes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Household Survey Form ---------------------------------------------------------------- 56 The Candidate Analysis Form -------------------------------------------------------------62

GLOSSARY

Disability

Persons with disabilities include those who have longterm physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others1 A social unit consisting of one or two or more families living in the same housing unit and having common arrangements in the preparation and consumption of food Total income from the household either from wage or self-employment

Household

Household inflow

Household expenditures Total expenses of the household on food, education, utilities, etc.

United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

vi

BACKGROUND

Baras is one of the smaller municipalities of the Province of Rizal due to smaller land area compared to other municipalities in the province. It is bounded on the north by the City of Antipolo and on the east by the Municipality of Tanay, which are far more developed municipalities than Baras which has a small business sector. As such, Baras is classified as a 4th class2 municipality with an annual internal budget from the national government between US$ 594,000 and US$831,000. Based on their annual investment plan, 20% of the total internal revenue allotment is allocated for the development sector. However, this is not enough to provide for the needs of the population. The limited budget allocation for the development sector has affected the delivery of quality services to its constituents. Sectors such as persons with disabilities, older persons and single women who head their families are the most affected. These vulnerable persons are the most neglected and often lack access to education, health and livelihood. Compounding the problem of limited budget for social services is the high vulnerability of the municipality to landslides. Rizal Province has been identified by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as one of the top 10 provinces that are at risk to earthquake-induced shallow landslides3. Hence, it was not surprising that the municipality was among those badly hit by tropical storm Ketsana in 2009. Many families lost their homes and sources of income. The Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO) reported losing Php13 million in livestock and infrastructure3. Among the disadvantaged groups who suffered the most from the disaster were households whose members include persons with disabilities, single female headed households and households with older members. After the 2009 typhoons, Baras started to recover but its vulnerability to natural disasters remains very high. Currently, the local government of Baras has taken steps to respond to the needs of the vulnerable sector in the municipality. They have allocated 0.5% of the 20% of the Municipal Development Fund and 1% of the Internal Revenue Allotment of the funds in the barangay to programs and services that will cater to the needs of senior citizens and DPOs. For the year 2013, the municipal government has allotted US$10,230 to provide assistance to 1,000 people with disabilities and another US$10,230 for 1,000 senior citizens. However, it is not clear what programs or activities will be implemented to ensure that said budget is utilized to benefit persons with disabilities and senior citizens. At the barangay level, there is lack of policies and procedures on how to utilize these funds.

2 3

http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/articles/con_income.asp

REBUILD Project Proposal, General Situation.

Needless to say, despite efforts to improve the situation of vulnerable persons in Baras after the typhoon, the Local Government Unit (municipal and barangays), policymakers and stakeholders still lack comprehensive programs to address the economic, social and physical needs of the vulnerable groups in the municipality. To address this gap, Handicap International - Philippines Program, with funding support from Swiss Solidarity, implemented the REBUILD project. The projects overall objective is to increase access of vulnerable populations in the municipality of Baras to livelihood opportunities while capacitating local development stakeholders to make programs and activities become more inclusive. Specifically, the project intends to: a. Consolidate the livelihood of the vulnerable families in Baras through the mobilization and delivery of adequate social and livelihood supports. b. Empower Baras Disabled Peoples Organization to become a significant and active local development stakeholder that will ensure that the needs and rights of persons with disabilities are taken into account in development and disaster risk management initiatives. It is in this context that Handicap International - Philippines Program, through the REBUILD project, conducted a household survey and candidate analysis of vulnerable families. The candidate analysis is a selection process based on the project criteria and those who become an EPH and validated by the Local Development Committee4 (LDC). The objectives of the household survey and candidate analysis are as follows: To generate baseline information on the status and socio-economic conditions of persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups in Baras, such as older persons and single women-headed households from the three focus barangays of Baras namely, San Jose, San Juan and Pinugay To identify practical strategies for quality project implementation focusing on how to implement inclusive livelihood projects to different vulnerable persons tailored according to their needs To put together relevant information that will influence policy makers, governments and service providers towards inclusion of people with disabilities in local development initiatives and creation of livelihood opportunities for persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups

See annex LDC guidelines

Map No. 1. Map of the Project Area Barangays San Jose, San Juan and Pinugay

Barangay PINUGAY

Barangay SAN JOSE

Barangay SAN JUAN

Source: Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, Baras Rizal

1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF BARAS Geographical Description. Baras is a 4th class municipality of Rizal Province located in the northern shore of Laguna de Bay, the largest inland body of water in the Philippines. It is bounded on the north and east by the town of Tanay, on the south by Laguna de Bay, and on the west by Morong Municipality. The town is situated 51 kilometers southeast of Manila and can be reached by land from Manila.
Map No. 2. Map of Baras, Rizal

General Demography: Based on the 2010 census of the National Statistics Office, Baras has a total population of 32,6095 or 4,971 households distributed in 10 barangays.
Table 1. Population Distribution per Barangay Barangays 2010 Census Evangelista 3,955 Rizal (Poblacion) 3,306 San Jose 3,008 San Salvador 2,830 Santiago Concepcion San Juan San Miguel Mabini Pinugay Total 3,599 1,317 3,242 1,551 2,405 7,396 32,609

Source: 2010 Census, National Statistics Office

Municipal Profile of Baras 2010

Health Situation. The rural health unit (RHU) of Baras is the municipalitys main health care service provider. The RHU is composed of the municipal physician, nurses, dentists, midwives, sanitary inspectors, trained birth attendants (TBAs) and barangay health workers (BHWs). While the Local Government Unit of Baras has already identified the need to augment its present number of municipal health workers to further improve its delivery of health service to the local population, there remains a lack of health professionals that will ensure access to health care services especially for the marginalized and vulnerable groups. At present, there is only one municipal physician servicing the entire population of Baras. The standard ratio is 1:1,000 or one medical doctor for every 1,000 persons.
Table 2. Baras Health Personnel, 2008-2009 Current Health Personnel 1998 1999 2008 requirements Doctors 1 1 1 2 Nurses 1 1 1 2 Medical Technologies 0 0 1 1 Dentist 1 1 1 1 Midwives 4 4 4 6 Engineers/ Sanitary 1 1 1 2 Active BHW 56 60 82 324 Trained Birth Attendants 6 6 55

Backlog -1 -1 0 0 -2 -1 -242

The problem is compounded by the inadequacy of health facilities. There is a relatively high ratio of people served per rural health station. Access to these facilities is also lacking with most of these facilities located at the center (Poblacion) of the municipality which is hardly accessible to populations living in far-flung barangays (especially in Pinugay which is 15 kilometers from Poblacion). As a result, there is a high mortality rate for communicable but preventable diseases, with pneumonia leading the list of causes of death at 80% and morbidity rate of 70% caused by cardiovascular disease (CVD) (hypertension)6. Education. Baras reported a low literacy rate attributed to the lack of schools and education service personnel. Although the municipality has existing primary and secondary schools, most of the youth, however, attend tertiary schools in neighboring municipalities and in Manila. The inadequacy of funds has constrained the municipal government from constructing additional school facilities and hiring teaching staff, as well as in increasing scholarship grants to deserving students. The problem is not an isolated experience, with most of the countrys public elementary schools having a teacher-pupil ratio of 1:44, which is higher than the Department of Educations (DepEd) standard of 1: 40 teacher-pupil ratio.

Socio-Economic Profile of Baras, Health Sector

Farming. Rice is the primary crop produced, taking up to 74% of cultivated land and 42% of total crop production7. Only a small portion of total rice production is harvested in the uplands. The total area of irrigated rice fields is 210 hectares. Upland crop production is more diverse than that of the lowland. It includes corn, root crops, vegetables, fruit trees and legumes. Root crops (cassava, sweet potato and yam) are the chief upland harvest. There are two dams serving as sources of water. However, the two dams are not enough for rice field irrigations. Thus there is a need to have an additional dam to support rice production in Baras. In addition to rice production problems, the lack of good farm-to-market roads contributed to unstable prices of farm produce. Fishing. Its proximity to Laguna de Bay has made fishing the most common source of income for the local population. According to the Bureau of Fishery and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), the municipality has 587 hectares of fishing ground in Laguna de Bay. Likewise, the municipal agriculturist said that there are no fish pen owners in Baras. Instead, the fishermen rely on daily fishing for their livelihood. The fish products are sold to local traders in the municipality, to neighboring towns and to Metro Manila. Fish vendors in the barangay only sell to neighboring households and barangays. Seven (7) barangays out of 10 barangays are considered to be suitable for fishing, including Barangays Pinugay, San Juan and San Jose. Livestock Raising. Swine is the most common backyard and commercial farm animal being raised in the locality of Baras. Barangay Pinugay is most suited to swine raising and, to a much lesser extent, cattle raising due to its vast tract of land fit for grazing animals. Poultry is also raised in backyards but only for family consumption. The municipalitys proximity to Metro Manila and its topography makes it ideal for agribusiness with a focus on livestock raising. Swine and broiler make up the biggest portion of the total estimated agribusiness sales value at 62% and 34% respectively8. This is followed by chicken and quail egg production, which are comparatively much smaller operations. The economic opportunities discussed above are the current economic resources within Baras. The discussion shows that Baras is a predominantly agricultural municipality. Most of the populations engage in farming activities, and farm products are available in the center of Baras. Employment and Income. In a 2010 study of Baras conducted by the Far Eastern University, it was reported that about 46.5 % of household heads and their working age household members are employed, and a significant 36.5 % reported not being employed9. This gives an indication of the employment and unemployment rates of the population. Among those employed, 56.3 % are regular while 43.7% are
7 8

Socio-Economic Profile of Baras-Economic Section Municipal Agriculture of Baras

contractual employees. About 50%-80% of its labor force is employed outside the municipality. The same survey also showed that a significant percentage of households in Baras or 34 % are earning monthly incomes of Php5,000 to Php10,000, 30% earn between Php1,000 to Php5,000 a month and 12% earn a monthly income between Php10,001 to Php15,000. Compared against the 2012 Municipal Poverty Threshold of Php8,50510 per household per month, it can be deduced that more than 60 % of households live below the poverty line. However, no data on how many are engaged in self-employment activities. Livelihood Opportunities for Vulnerable Households. Vegetable gardening is the most common livelihood activity in the three barangays. Households sell their produce for income. Daily wage employment is also available such as construction worker, laundry, caretaker and laborer. Aside from this, there are other livelihood opportunities in each of the three barangays depending on the individual interest, family support and available resources. In Barangay San Juan, households are into goat raising, store vending, and food vending (pastries and delicacies). In Barangay San Jose, fish and vegetable vending, hog raising and food vending (bread, fried banana, salted shrimp paste) are the common sources of income, while in Pinugay households are engaged in store vending, bamboo selling, rag making and charcoal making. A member of the household is usually responsible for managing the livelihood activity of the family.

2. THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

Three (3) pilot barangays namely, San Jose, San Juan and Pinugay, which served as relocation sites for families displaced as a result of Typhoon Ketsana, were targeted by the project survey. A two-level data gathering was conducted to determine the families that can benefit from the project (they are also called Economic Project Holders or EPH). First the household survey, and second the candidate analysis. Determining the Vulnerable Household Survey Population through Household Pooling The REBUILD Project Team did the household survey to establish the general situation of vulnerable households in the three barangays, and from the population of vulnerable households, conduct a candidate analysis to identify the Economic Project Holders. The EPH are those who will be supported in launching or expanding their income generating project or in job placement. Crucial to the survey is the identification of the pool of households that will compose the survey population. To facilitate this process, the following steps were undertaken:
Conducting a Project Orientation to key stakeholders at the municipal and barangay levels

Gathering data through the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO), particularly the list of people with disabilities in Baras. Organizing a Disability Orientation for Barangay Health Workers (BHWs) and Barangay Nutrition Scholars (BNS). Listing of vulnerable households per target barangay through the BHWs and BNS. Validating the list, and cross validating it using the MSWDOs list of people with disabilities in the municipality. But no validation was done for the other vulnerable people, because the pool list provided was already pre-identified by the BHW and BNS.

Criteria used to identify the household survey population were the following:
Economically vulnerable, using the municipal poverty threshold as indicator At least one of the household members is a person with disabilities At least one household member is an older person The household is headed by a single woman

Based on the above criteria, the Project Team identified the 386 households to compose the pool of household survey population. A Household Survey Form 9 was formulated, pre-tested and used to generate information on the households socioeconomic profile highlighting the households vulnerability based on the above and providing basis for selection of households that fit the projects eligibility criteria. Candidate Analysis: Determining the Candidate Economic Project Holders After profiling the 386 vulnerable households, the Project Team performed the Candidate Analysis to identify the Candidate EPHs among the eligible households using the Candidate Analysis (CA) Form.10 The CA tool derived more in-depth information about the potential EPHs as well as on the preferred livelihood activities of the candidates. From the pool of 386 households, the Project Team selected 189 most vulnerable households as Candidate Economic Project Holders based on the following criteria:
At least a member of the household is a person with disability or an older person (OP) Headed by a single woman Household income is equal to or below Php8,505.00 Has no existing loan from formal micro-finance institutions Willing to participate in the project activities

A Local Decision Committee (LDC) composed of three (3) individuals helped identify and select the EPH candidates. Members of the LDC include the Chairperson of the Barangay Development Councils Committee on Livelihood, a Barangay Health Worker and a REBUILD Local Facilitator. However, in the three focused barangays, additional members were selected by the current members to compose the LDC. This
9 10

Annex 1 Annex 2

ensured wider community participation in the selection process. The LDC was created to support the project in the selection and validation of EPHs. The LDC only validates the residency status of the EHP and their participation in every community activity. At the beginning of the household survey, the local facilitators themselves conducted the survey in Barangays San Juan and San Jose. The LDC and BHW of the respective barangays assisted in locating the homes of the HH survey respondents. In the case of Barangay Pinugay, two additional enumerators were hired to speed up the household survey since Barangay Pinugay is the farthest and the target households were generally scattered in the barangay. After the survey, an encoder was also hired to ensure timely encoding of data from the field. Data were encoded in the Excel database program developed by the REBUILD Livelihood Team under the guidance of the Program Monitoring and Evaluation Officer. Data validation and quality check were done by the Project Team in coordination with the Program Coordination Unit. 3. RESULTS OF THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY AND CANDIDATE ANALYSIS The Household Survey Population A total of 386 households were identified to compose the survey population. This represents 8% of the 4,971 total number of households in Baras. Of this number, 51% or 197 households are located in Barangay Pinugay, 25% or 96 households can be found in Barangay San Juan and 24% or 93 are in Barangay San Jose. Figure 1. Household Survey Population

24%

25%

Brgy. San Juan Brgy. Pinugay Brgy. San Jose

51%

Eligibility Assessment thru Vulnerability Classification. Based on the criteria defined earlier, the households were classified according to the types of vulnerability. Of the 386 households surveyed, 44% or 171 were households having a person with disability as member, 165 or 43% were households with older persons as members and 68 individuals or 18% belong to what can be classified as single female-headed households. Figure 2. Vulnerability Classification of Households

18%

44%

HH with PWD HH with OP HH with SP

43%

Age and Sex Distribution. A total of 1,914 persons comprised the 386 surveyed households with 795 out of 1,914 of working age. The population is almost evenly distributed between the male and female wherein 50% are female and 50% are male. Average number of members per household is five (5). Almost half or 45% of the surveyed households are 18 years old and below. Reproductive Age Group (15-44). Of the total number of women (959), 38% or 366 women belong to the reproductive age group (15-44 years old) or women who can still bear children and therefore has the potential to contribute to the increase in population. This has implication on the incidence of disability in the household survey population if women are not properly educated on the effect of nutrition on the development of the child. Productive Age Group (15-60). A total of 986 individuals or 52% of the total population of the survey population belong to the productive age group. People who belong to this age group have the capacity to be gainfully employed.

10

School Age Group. Meanwhile, 41% of the total survey population or 783 individuals belong to the school age group 5-24 years old, meaning they are expected to be attending school. Figure 3. Age Distribution of Survey Population
2% 12% Children 9% 45% 12% Adults (19-34) Adults (35-49) Adults (50-59) Adults (60-79) Adults (80-94) 20%

Status of Residency. Majority or 71% (274) of the households are formal settlers while 29% (112) are informal settlers. Informal settlers owned the house but not necessarily the lot where their houses stood, while formal settlers own both house and lot.

Figure 4. Tenurial Status of Households

29%

Formal Informal

71%

11

Vulnerability Assessment according to Types of Impairment. From 386 households, 194 households have members who have some form of impairment. The most common form of impairment is physical impairment comprising 50% or 112 of the disabled household members. Physical impairments include fractured bones, dislocated arms, legs, club foot, amputated arms and legs, paralysis resulting from stroke, polio, cerebral palsy and epilepsy. This is followed by sensorial impairment at 37% or 83 household members. Sensorial impairments include visual, hearing, and speech. Seven percent or 17 household members have intellectual and or cognitive impairment. This includes household members who have autism and delayed learning impairments. Others have mental-psycho-social impairments and multiple impairments which comprise of 3%.

Figure 5. Households According to Types of Impairment


2% 4% 8%

39%

Sensorial Impairment Physical Impairment Intellectual Impairment Mental Impairment Multiple Impairment

47%

Causes of Impairment. Majority or 42% (79) of impairments experienced by the 194 households are congenital in origin. This implies the lack of knowledge of mothers on the effect of proper nutrition on the development of healthy children. A second major cause of impairment is sickness or chronic illnesses, specifically severe asthma and diabetes at 35% (68 individuals), followed by impairment resulting from accidents at 20% or 38 people, and impairment caused by occupational accident at 3% (6) and depression at 1% (3).

12

Figure 6. Causes of Impairment


3% 1%

20% 41%

Congenital Sickness Accident

35%

Vulnerable persons ability to do daily activities. When asked about their capacity to perform daily activities (e.g. eating, bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring or walking and continence), 45% (75) of older persons and 29% (49) of persons with disabilities expressed being independent and being able to do things on their own. Sixteen percent (16%) of persons with disabilities (28) and 7% (11) of older persons are totally dependent on others in doing their daily activities, while 14% (24) of persons with disabilities and 12% (19) of older persons cannot do most of the daily activities without assistance.

Figure 7. Vulnerable Person's Ability to Do Daily Activities


45%

29%

27% 16% 7%

29%

14%

12%

14% 8%

Self-reliant

Totally dependent on assistance

Cannot do MOST Cannot do SOME daily activities daily activities without assistance without assistance

Dont understand the question

Person with Disability

Older Person

13

The response of single woman-headed households was not considered because they dont have physical vulnerabilities similar to persons with disabilities and older persons. Vulnerable persons ability to engage in employment. Regarding their ability to engage in employment, 44% or 30 out of 68 single persons who head their households perceived themselves as having the ability to engage in employment. Hence only 13% (9) of them are unable to find employment. In the case of persons with disabilities, 33% (56) perceived themselves able to find a job or be self-employed, although this does not translate into being actually employed, as 25% (43) are unable to seek employment and 18% are unable to be self-employed either. Meanwhile, older persons have a rather bleaker situation compared to the others. Although 25% (42) perceived themselves as having the ability to be employed or selfemployed, 35% (57) are unable to seek employment and 22% (36) are unable to engage in self-employment.

Figure 8. Vulnerable Persons' Ability to Engage in Employment


44%

33% 25% 25%

35% 32% 25% 22% 18% 13% 10% 18%

Employed/Self-Employed

Unable to seek employment

Not able to engage in self employment

Dont understand the question

Person with Disability

Older Person

Single Headed Women

14

Coping mechanisms of vulnerable household members in time of difficulties. Asked further on how they cope with the challenges they are confronted with, 27% would ask for guidance and support from relatives, friends and other people while 26% would do something to keep themselves busy and productive. Acceptance and positive outlook were also attitudes that 9% of the respondents try to cultivate within themselves to be able to deal with their situation. To cope with their economic situation, 10% resort to financial budgeting to make both ends meet. About 4 % of the respondents would make use of their assistive devices such as wheelchairs, hearing aids and the like not only to cope with disasters but to make living easier for them.

Figure 9. Coping Mechanism of Vulnerable Household Members

Ask for guide and support from other relatives, friends and other people Acceptance and positive outlook Financial budgeting and assistance Use of assistive devices 10% 2% 1% 1% 4% 26% 2% Others Do something productive 9% Ask for medical advice

18% 27%

15

Household

Economic Situation

Income. Household survey results revealed that majority 76% or 295 of the 386 household surveyed earns an average monthly income of Php7,500 and below. This means that 76% or 295 households live below the poverty line when compared with 2012 Municipal Poverty Threshold of Php8,50510 per household per month. The household income earner members are those able members and under the working age of 20-55 years old. However, in the graphs below, Php15,001 to Php30,000 incomes of the surveyed households are a bit big. These incomes come from other sources such as monetary support from the relatives abroad and two or more members of the family who are engaged in wage employment. Twenty-one (21) households out of 386 have an income of Php15,001 to Php30,000.

Figure 10. Average Monthly Household Income

45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Php 02,500 Brgy. San Jose Brgy. Pinugay Brgy. San Juan 30% 30% 41% Php 2,5015,000 22% 21% 23% Php 5,0017,500 22% 23% 20% Php 7,50110,000 14% 14% 10% Php 10,00115,000 6% 6% 2% Php 15,00120,000 5% 4% 2% Php 20,00130,000 1% 2% 2%

Measurements

16

Sources of income. A total of 561 individuals are currently earning income for their households. Forty-two percent (42%) or 238 of whom were women and 52% or 323 were men. Majority of the income come from wage employment with 393 or 70% of the total number of individuals earning income for their households being daily wage earners or wage employees such as construction workers, drivers, caregivers, domestic helpers, salesladies, barangay tanods, factory workers, laundrywomen and teachers. Next to wage employment, agriculture-based economic activities such as farming and livestock raising, account for 13% of the source of income of the households. Thirty-five (35) household members or 6% are engaged in buying and selling of fruits and vegetables, fish vending and selling of balut, smoked fish and pandesal. Some households are also into food vending, operating a small eatery or a small variety store. Still others are into dressmaking, sewing and trimming. But, generally, the main source of income from the three barangays is wage employment, which is being augmented by self-employment through the operation of a small business.

Table 3. Sources of Income of the Households


Sources of Income Brgy. Pinugay
F M Total

Brgy. San Jose


F M Total

Brgy. San Juan


F M Total

Grand Total 75 14 35 11 7 15 7 393 4 561

Agriculture and Agribusiness Food Vending Buy and Sell Beauty and Wellness Handicrafts Store Vending Garment and Tailoring Wage Employment Others Total

10 9 7 5 2 11 5 91 1 141

35 0 5 0 4 0 0 108 0 152

45 9 12 5 6 11 5 199 1 293

4 0 4 1 0 0 1 33 0 43

12 2 5 0 1 0 0 66 2 88

16 2 9 1 1 0 1 99 2 131

2 3 10 2 0 3 1 33 0 54

12 0 4 3 0 1 0 62 1 83

14 3 14 5 0 4 1 95 1 137

17

Household Inflow. There is no significant difference between the household income and the household inflow in the three barangays. Whatever income they get from other sources did not have any impact on the household inflow. Household inflow is sourced mainly from their wage employment.

Figure 11. Average Monthly Household Inflow


18% 16% 14% 12%

Measurement

10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Php 02,500 Php 2,5015,000 5% 11% 6% Php 5,0017,500 5% 12% 5% Php 7,50110,000 3% 7% 3% Php 10,00115,000 2% 3% 1% Php 15,00120,000 1% 2% 1% Php 20,00130,000 0% 1% 1%

Brgy. San Jose Brgy. Pinugay Brgy. San Juan

9% 16% 10%

Household Expenditures. In Barangay San Jose, majority or 33 (36%) out of 93 households reported a monthly household expenditure within the range of Php5,001Php7,000. Fifty-three (52) households or 26% of the 197 households in Barangay Pinugay averaged about Php5,001-Php7,000 in its monthly expenditure while most of the households in Barangay San Juan or 25 out of 97 households spend between Php2,5001-Php7,000 to meet their basic needs.

18

Figure 12. Average Monthly Household Expenditure

40%

Measurement

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Php 02,500 Php 2,5015,000 24% 26% 26% Php 5,0017,500 35% 27% 22% Php 7,50110,000 12% 14% 16% Php 10,00115,000 9% 17% 10% Php 15,00120,000 5% 6% 3% 5% Php 20,00150,000

Brgy. San Jose Brgy. San Juan Brgy. Pinugay

15% 5% 23%

Most of the households reported spending their income mostly on food, education and health. Acquisition of physical assets and household utilities are considered also important. Figure 13. Breakdown of Expenditures of Households

10% 10% 9% 61%


Food Health Physical Assets Education Utilities

10%

19

Coping Mechanisms of vulnerable households. To supplement the household income, majority or 71% (271) seek help or assistance from their families, relatives and friends. Seventeen percent (17%) or 65 households resort to operating a small variety store to provide for the daily needs of the family. Households seldom approach micro-finance institutions, money lenders and cooperatives because majority of the selected household respondents do not have access to financing institutions or, even if they had access to MFIs, they opt not to access their services because of exorbitant interest and requirements. However, comparing the household income and the household inflow, any assistance they may have sourced from their families and friends do not have significant impact on the household inflow. Figure 14. Household Coping Mechanisms

Coop Brgy. San Jose Brgy. Pinugay Brgy. San Juan 0% 0% 0%

Family/Relativ es/Friends 14% 47% 10%

MFI 2% 0% 2%

Money Lender 0% 1% 1%

None 9% 1% 4%

Sari2x 6% 3% 8%

Most of the respondents or 49% (187) seek help or assistance from their families and relatives purposely to buy food, while others cited health and education as their main reasons.

20

Figure 15. How Often Household Seek Assistance

Daily Brgy. San Jose Brgy. Pinugay Brgy. San Juan 6% 6% 5%

Some times 0% 0% 0%

2x a week 0% 0% 0%

3x a week 0% 0% 0%

Weekl y 6% 25% 10%

BiMont hly 3% 8% 1%

Mont hly 3% 8% 1%

Quart erly 0% 1% 1%

SemiAnnu aly 4% 1% 2%

Annu aly 0% 1% 0%

None 2% 1% 5%

Majority or 41% or 160 out of 386 surveyed household said that they seek assistance from their families, friends and relatives for their food needs on a weekly basis while 18% do the same on a daily basis. This further indicates the insufficiency of their current household income to provide for the daily needs of their families. Eleven percent (11%) would approach their relatives and friends either once a month or twice a month depending on the availability of the cash or non-cash support from their family, relatives and friends. Assistance needed by the households. When asked about the type of assistance the household needs, 39% of the surveyed households indicated needing medical assistance, 35% expressed the need for livelihood assistance while a significant percentage or 14% (54 households) expressed needing assistance to meet their basic needs including food.

21

Figure 16. Type of Assistance Needed in Three Barangays


1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 14% 35% Livelihood Assistance Assistive Devices Food, Basic Needs Medical Assistance Care and Guidance Counselling Educational Support 39% 5% 2% Housing None Therapy

Support received by the households. When asked whether the household received any assistance from other organizations, most of the households at 64% (249) reported not receiving any support whether from public or private groups. Seventy-four (74) households or 19% received financial assistance from the relatives and families while 9% (34) received assistance for their basic needs.

Figure 17. Support received by the households


Financial Assistance 19% Basic Needs Guidance and moral support Medical Assistance 64% 2% 3% 1% 2% Others Assistive Device

9%

22

The Candidate Economic Project Holders From the 386 vulnerable household surveyed, 189 household qualified to become Individual Economic Project Holders of livelihood projects from the REBUILD Project. The results of the Candidate Analysis done on the respondents representing the 189 households gave information on the profile of these individuals and their families and the type of livelihood they are most interested to engage in. Age and Sex Distribution. Mostly women or 68% (128) qualified as EPH while 32% or 60 men qualified as EPH. Qualified EPHs are within the age range of 19 to 94 years old. However, EPH livelihood interests are not only limited to them, but if the livelihood venture needs support from the family members, one of them can take the lead in managing it.

Figure 18. Age Distribution of Economic Project Holders


1%

22% 31%
Adults (19-24) Adults (35-49) Adults (50-59) Adults (60-79)

24%

Adults (80-94)

22%

23

Educational attainment. Majority of the EPHs and their household members have attained either a primary level (32%) or a secondary level (21%) of education. A significant percentage reported not having any education at all: 19%. This already limits their option for wage employment as most companies would require employees to be at least high school graduates. Most of the target EPHs have reached only either primary or secondary levels, or have no education at all. Figure 19. Level of Education of EPH Household Members

5% 19% 1% 5% 0% 0% 8% 32%
Preparatory Primary Level Elementary Level Graduate Secondary level Secondary Level Graduate Voctec Graduate Voctec Level College Level College Graduate No Education

21%

9%

24

Basic Literacy. The target EPHs have working knowledge of the Filipino language in terms of the 3Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic-computation). However, their knowledge of the 3Rs becomes limited when the language used is Basic English. This strengthens the literacy level of the target population as reflected in their level of education, and have implications on the appropriate support to be given to them, as well as the methodologies to be used when coaching. The no knowledge means no theoretical knowledge or background about wage employment and working knowledge means the EPH has practical knowledge on wage employment.

70 60

Figure 20. Basic Literacy of EPHs: Basic English Language

Measurement

50 40 30 20 10 0 No Knowledge 8.47 6.88 12.17 8.47 Limited 52.91 54.5 65.61 65.61 Working Knowledge 34.39 34.92 19.58 23.81 Proficient 4.23 3.7 2.65 2.12

Reading Writing Speaking Understanding

Figure 21. Basic Literacy of EPHs: Filipino Language


90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Reading Writing Speaking Understanding

No Knowledge 3.7 2.65 2.12 1.59

Limited 11.11 13.23 5.82 6.88

Working Knowledge 75.66 74.07 79.89 79.37

Proficient 9.52 10.05 12.17 12.17

25

Vulnerability. Of the 189 EPH respondents, 30% or 56 are older people, 24% or 46 are members of households with persons with disabilities, 22% or 42 are persons with disabilities; 13% or 24 are single persons who head their families, 9% or 18 persons who belong to households with older persons and 2% or three (3) EPHs are members of households headed by single persons. However, on the data of types of impairment from EPH, theres no significant change of results from the household survey. Figure 22. Eligibility Assessment of Economic Project Holders
2%

I am a PWD I am a SP I am an OP
13%

24%

22%

9% 30%

I am member of HH with OP I am member of HH with PWD I am member of HH with SP

For persons with disabilities, 47% or 49 of the persons with disabilities have physical impairment, 39% or 40 have sensorial impairment, 8% or 8 have cognitive impairment, 2% or 2 have mental impairment and 4% or 4 have multiple impairments.

Figure 23. Types of Impairment of EPH


2% 4% 8% 39%

Sensorial Impairment Physical Impairment Intellectual Impairment Mental Impairment

47%

Multiple Impairment

26

The vulnerability of EPHs in terms of activities of daily living and engagement in employment was not discussed because theres no significant difference seen from the results coming from the pool of 386 households. Vulnerability of Persons with Disabilities and Employment. When asked about the effect of their condition on their ability to engage in employment or self-employment, 35% or 34 of the persons with disabilities complained that they are unable to seek employment and 19% or 18 are not able to engage in self-employment. Only 7% or 7 mentioned that they are capable of being employed/self-employed despite their condition. Figure 24. Effect of Being a Person with Disabilities on Ones Ability to Engage in Employment/Self-Employment

7%

Employed/Self-employed
39% 35%

Unable to seek employment Not able to engage in selfemployment Dont understand the question
19%

Vulnerability of Older Persons and Employment. For older persons, the same trend can be observed. Only 8% or 6 of the 77 older persons interviewed perceived themselves as having the capability to be employed or self-employed. More than half or 56% (43) feel that their condition affects their ability to seek employment hence they are unable to seek employment, while 21% or 16 of them believe that their condition has affected their ability to engage even in self-employment. It should be mentioned that persons with disabilities referred to in this section are actually people with impairment hence these results.

27

Figure 25. Effect of Being an Older Person on Ones Ability to Engage in Employment/Self-Employment

15%

8%

Employed/Self-employed Unable to seek employment


56%

21%

Not able to engage in selfemployment Dont understand the question

Socio-Economic Profile of the Economic Project Holders Income. The 189 EPHs belong to households with average monthly household income of Php8,500 and below. They are considered as the poorest among the poor households of Baras, considering that the 2012 Regional Poverty Threshold for Rizal Province is Php8,50510 per household per month. From the above figure, 40% or 75 earn a monthly income of Php100-Php2,500, 24% or 46 earn a monthly income between Php2,501-Php5,000, 27% or 51 of the EPHs have an average a monthly income between Php 5,001 to Php7,500, and 9% or 17 of the respondents earn a monthly income between Php7,501-Php8,500.

Figure 26. Monthly Household Income of EPH

9%

Php 100-2,500
40%

27%

Php 2,501-5,000 Php 5,001-7,500

24%

Php 7,501-8,500

28

Employment. A total of 241 individuals are contributing to the monthly household income of the EPH households. Of this number, 64% (154) are wage employees and 20% or 48 are earning income from agriculture-based economic activities. A smaller percentage are into buy-and-sell, food vending, handicraft making, beauty and wellness and operation of a small variety store.
Table 4. Sources of Income of EPHs Sources of Income Agriculture/Agri-business Wage employment Buy and sell Food vending Handicrafts Beauty and wellness Small variety store Total Pinugay 30 101 11 7 4 2 6 161 44 1 36 San Jose 9 30 5 San Juan 9 23 1 2 Total 48 154 17 9 4 2 7 241 % 20 64 7 4 2 1 3 100

Household Inflow. Reflecting the general profile of the surveyed population, most or 76% of the incomes contributing to the total household inflow of the EPH households come from wage employment (unskilled labor, construction work, service industry), which is not regular in nature. This main source of income, however, does not enable the target population to go beyond the poverty threshold which is Php8,505. Other inflow which is not mentioned is the support of relatives from the families. Figure 27. Monthly Inflow of EPH Households

14%

10%

Wage Employment Self-employment Others


76%

29

Household expenditures. As already noted earlier, the incomes of households are mainly expended on food at 59%. Household income is not enough to cover other expenses of the household. Only 8% and 10% of the household income is being used for educational and health purposes, respectively. This also explains the low level of education of target population, as well as their expressed needs for education, health and acquisition of physical assets. Figure 28. Monthly Expenditure of EPH Households
1% 0% 8%

8%

Food Education Physical Assets Health Utilities Leisure Job related Others

10%

6%

59%

8%

Social support needed by the EPH. When asked to identify the types of support needed to address their difficulties, 27% of the EPHs identified health and medical needs followed by social welfare need at 17% and adaptive and mobility aid at 9%. Others identified the need for rehabilitation and special education. This accounts for the expressed priority needs of the target population (i.e. people with disabilities and older people) on health and medical services. Second to this is the need for financial assistance to support the livelihood of vulnerable households. The assumption is that these households will be able to cover the needs of its members aside from food if the inflow is enough, and if they have access to other government programs such as social protection services. A significant percentage (39%) did not identify specific social support assistance they may need.

30

Figure 29. Social Support Needed by the EPHs

Health and Medical


27% 39%

Social Welfare Need Further Assessment Adaptive and Mobility Aid

17% 5% 9% 1% 2%

Rehabilitation Others (Special Education, Jobfair,Educational Assistance)

Assistance received by EPHs. Majority of the target population (55%) have not receive any form of assistance from individuals, groups, organizations, agencies or institutions. Assistance received from family, friends and relatives are either in the form of cash or goods, but mainly used for buying or securing food. Assistance from government includes social assistance such as the 4Ps. Figure 30. Assistance received by EPHs from Various Groups

Family, Friends and Relatives

Government

Non-government Organization
30%

Internationl Non-goverment Organization


55% 6% 6% 3% 0%

Social Pension

No Assistance Received

31

Types of social services provided to EPHs. Fourteen households or 50% referred to social services received health assistance, including medical assistance and fitting and provision of assistive devices. One was referred for an educational scholarship and 13 households or 46% were referred to social welfare agency for registration as senior citizen. Figure 31. Social Services Provided to the EPHs

46%

50%

Health(Medical and Rehabilitation) Educational

4%

Livelihood skills. Majority or 78% (148) of the EPHs have skills in cooking and selling, as most of the EPHs are women. The remaining EPHs have skills related to manual labor such as carpentry (5% or 10), welding (1% or 1) and mechanic. Although agriculture is the major economic activity in Baras, only two (2) EPHs identified farming as their livelihood skill. Other skills identified by the EPHs are massage and landscape gardening.

Figure 31. Livelihood skills of EPHs

1% 0%

1% 1% 1% 8% 16% 5% 5%

18%

44%

Farming Carpentry Cooking Cooking and Selling Selling Welding Landscaping/ Gardening Massage Mechanic No Answer None

32

Livelihood interest. Most of the EPHs or 63% (119) would like to explore selfemployment livelihood activities. From this category, 29% or 34 out of 119 EPHs would like to start a livelihood activity and 85 EPHs would like to engage in start-up livelihood activity. EPHs who would like to restart a livelihood activity are previously engaged in the same livelihood activity but were forced to discontinue operation for various reasons (i.e. capital was used for emergency situations or health concerns). Some 53 EPHs would like to improve their existing small businesses through additional capital. About 6% or 11 EPHs would like to be employed as wage earners, while the remaining EPHs or 3% (6) were still undecided on what livelihood activity to engage into. Figure 32. Livelihood Interest of EPHs

6%

3%

Self-employment (enhancement) Self-employment (startup) Waged Employment


63%

28%

Undecided plans

33

Specific livelihood interest of EPHs. The particular livelihod interest of the EPHs reflect their present livelihood skills and livelihood interest. Majority of the EPHs would like to venture into eatery/food vending business (19%), buy-and-sell (20%) and small variety store (29%), which more often are self-employed and would require skills in selling and cooking. These are also the types of livelihood activities more associated with women. Again, this accounts for the prevalence of women among the EPHs. Also, such type of livelihood activities do not require a college degree and would only need working knowledge of Filipino and Basic English to be able to manage the livelihood activity particulalrly in simple bookkeeping and accounting.

Figure 33. Specific livelihood interest of the EPHs

Agriculture/Agri-business
1% 3% 5% 8% 10% 5%

Handicrafts Eatery/Food Vending Buy and Sell


19%

29%

Sari-sari store Garments/Tailoring Wage Employment Beauty and Wellness For follow-up/Initial plans

20%

34

Capacity building needs of the EPHs. Majority or 49% of the EPH identified training on savings mobilization as a priority. Once they start up an income generating project, they would like to be able to save a portion of their earnings. The savings will be used for the education of their children, to buy medicines and for emergency purposes such as disasters. Next to training on savings mobilization is training on financial management. This will help enhance their skills in managing their small-scale business finances as well as their household finances. Business start-up training was also identified since some of the EPHs already have existing small scale businesses. However, they need technical inputs on how to manage their business more efficiently and effectively. The rest of trainings are product development and training for employment which is least identified.

Figure 34. Capacity Building Needs of the EPHs

1%

4%

5%

Savings Mobilization Training Business Start-up Training

26% 49%

Product Development Training Financial management training/Peer training Need Further Assessment
3% 12%

Training employment No Response

35

Assessment of Quality of Life The term Quality of Life (QOL) refers to the general well-being of individuals, families and societies. The term is used to measure the indicator # 3 of REBUILD Project Specific Objective 1: 60% of the targeted beneficiaries express a better social and economic situation in their communities.
The Quality of Life measurement in this project should not be confused with the concept of standard of living which is based primarily on income. Instead, indicators of the quality of life are classified as ECONOMIC, SOCIAL and PSYCHO-SOCIAL. Economic indicators include household cash flow, health, education, physical assets and food. Social indicators include participation, while self-confidence is used to measure the psychosocial aspect of the quality of life. Respondents were made to rate their feelings of satisfaction on the statements corresponding to the aspect of Economic, Social and Psycho-social. Below are the sample questions answered by the respondents:

Economic Needs (Do you agree with the following statement: Household has sufficient cash resources within the past year to cover expenses for)
Category Household cash flow (separate category) Food Health Education Physical Assets

Social Needs (Do you agree with the following statements?)


Category I am able to participate in community activities

Psychosocial Needs (Do you agree with the following statements?)


Category I have self-confidence

Their responses were scored according to the following: 1 - Highly satisfied 2 - Satisfied 3 - Dissatisfied 4 - Highly Dissatisfied

36

Quality of Life: ECONOMICS The EPHs belonging to the three categories expressed dissatisfaction with the level of their household income. They felt that their income is not sufficient to cover their needs on health, education, physical assets and food, as all scores are above 2. This is consistent with the finding that the income level of the EPH households is below the poverty line. Comparing the results of QOL in ECONOMIC between the 42 EPH households in the relocation sites (relocatees) and the 147 EPH households in the host community (non-relocatees), although the scoring is relatively close for all cases, respondents from host communities have higher ratings, which means they are more dissatisfied than the relocatees (see Figure 36).

Figure 35. Quality of Life: ECONOMICS 3.5 (per vulnerable household category)
3 2.5 2

Measurement

1.5 1 0.5 0 HH Cashflow Health 2.9 2.85 2.96 Education 2.18 2.37 1.69 Physical Assets 3.01 3.04 2.91 Food 2.6 2.59 2.61

Person with Disability Single Headed Women Older Person

2.95 2.93 2.91

Figure 36. Quality of Life: ECONOMICS (relocatees versus non-relocatees)


3.5 3

Measurement

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Household Cash Flow 2.81 2.97 Health 2.79 2.95 Education 2 2.02 Physical Assets 2.64 3.07 Food 2.48 2.64

Relocatees Host Community

37

Quality of Life: SOCIAL Figure 37 shows that persons with disabilities and older persons are quite satisfied with their social participation. The existing organization such as disabled peoples organizations and senior citizens groups provide them venues to participate in community activities. In addition, senior citizens organizations in the barangay level are more organized compared with barangay DPOs; thats why older persons got the highest score. Meanwhile, single parents are slightly dissatisfied with their social life. Single parents have no time to attend community activities because they are preoccupied attending to the needs of their siblings. There is a slight difference in the results of the relocatees and host community. The relocatees are not quite active in community activities as compared to host community. This can be attributed to the fact that relocatees are new in the community and are still adjusting to their new environment, new neighborhood and are not yet familiar with the activities in the community. Figure 37. Quality of Life: SOCIAL (per vulnerable household category)
2.5 2

Measurement

1.5 1 0.5 0 Participation 2.01 2.19 1.82

Person with Disability Single Parent Older Person

Figure 38. Quality of life: SOCIAL (relocatees versus non-relocatees)


2

Measurement

1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75 Participation in Community Activities 1.86 1.99

Relocatees Host Community

38

Quality of Life: PSYCHO-SOCIAL The ratings in psycho-social aspects particularly in self-confidence of single women who head their households are relatively very low compared to persons with disabilities and older persons. Single women are emotionally vulnerable, with no venue to express their feelings not even in their own families. Culturally, single women who head their households are not perceived positively in the Philippines, since most rural communities are patriarchal in nature. Figure 39. Quality of Life: PSYCHO-SOCIAL
1.8 1.75 1.7 1.65 1.6 1.55 1.5 1.45 Self-Confidence Person with Disability Older Person Single Headed Women 1.62 1.55 1.75

Figure 40. Quality of Life: PSYCHO-SOCIAL (relocatees versus non-relocatees)


1.74

1.56

Relocatees Self Confidence

Host Communities

Comparing the relocatees and host communities, the relocatees have low selfconfidence compared with the host communities. This can be attributed to the fact that relocatees are new to the area and they are still adjusting to the dynamics of the communities.

39

4. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Household and EPH Characteristics. Generally, there is no significant difference in the demographic characteristics of households surveyed and EPHs, based on the information gathered. The results of the survey of the household survey population provided the context and facilitated the identification and selection of target EPHs. Comprising majority of the surveyed households, the EPHs are persons with disabilities or households with persons with disabilities as members, followed by older persons or households with older persons and single women-headed households. Education. The lack of education is a contributing factor to limited income with majority of the EPHs having reached primary level of education only. Their options for employment are therefore limited. Nevertheless, existing skills of the target EPHs can serve as resource to help improve the economic condition of the households. For instance, majority of the EPHs have skills in cooking and selling, which also happens to be the preferred economic activity. This reflects the mostly women qualified EPHs. EPH Working Knowledge. Majority of the EPHs have working knowledge (reading, writing, arithmetic) of the Filipino language while having a limited working knowledge of the Basic English language. This reflects the educational attainment of the surveyed population where the highest level of education achieved by the majority is primary level. Nonetheless, this information can be used to determine the appropriate support to be given to them, as well as the methodologies to be used when coaching. Income and Inflow. Majority of the survey population of 386 households from the three barangays in Baras earn an average monthly income below the municipal poverty threshold of Php8,505 per month. Most of these households source their income from wage employment outside of the municipality, which illustrates the limited economic opportunities on wage employment within the municipality. Most of the incomes contributing to the total household inflows of the target population come from wage employment (unskilled labor, construction work, service industry), which is not regular in nature. This main source of income, however, does not enable the target population to go beyond the poverty threshold which is Php8,505. The same profile is reflected in the target Economic Project Holders. The 189 EPHs represent the poorest of the poor in Barangays Pinugay, San Jose and San Juan whose income fall below the regional poverty threshold. The EPHs earn a monthly household income of Php8,500 and below for a household with 5-7 members. This means an EPH household only has a daily budget of at most Php283 (US$6.68) or Php40-Php57(US$.94-1.35) per member. Hence, it is not surprising that most of them would seek their relatives and friends for assistance even for their food needs. Moreover, although there are 241 household members earning income for their families, meaning there were at least 52 households with two members contributing to the family income, their combined income is still not sufficient to meet the needs of the 40

households. Considering also that the minimum wage in Rizal Province is Php275 per day for non-agricultural workers and Php215 per day for workers in the retail and service establishments. Existing skills and livelihood interests of EPHs. The existing skills of the target EPHs can serve as resource to help improve the economic condition of the households. For instance, majority of the EPHs have skills in cooking and selling, which also happens to be the preferred economic activity. This reflects the mostly women qualified EPHs. Most of the EPHs prefer to be self-employed and home-based, particularly the women. Self-employed activities offer more opportunity to earn income than wage employment especially since they may not be able to compete for limited employment opportunities given their low level of education and nature of their skills at present. Meanwhile, home-based economic activities will allow them to perform their responsibilities at home especially in providing for the needs of the vulnerable members of the household. Men, on the other hand, prefer wage employment. Received assistance. Most of the EPHs reported not receiving any assistance from any group whether public or private institutions. For those who have received assistance especially from relatives and friends, this is mainly spent on food for the family. Other forms of assistance received, if any, are for health and medical assistance. However, it seems that these were not enough since households still expressed the need for health and medical (rehabilitation) assistance as a priority followed by financial support. MAIN PROBLEMS OF THE SURVEYED POPULATION Limited opportunities for wage employment. As per the municipal profile of Baras, majority of its workers gain their employments outside the municipality. Low educational level. Majority of the target population have only reached either primary or secondary levels, or have no education at all. They would prefer selfemployment activities in order to gain control over the possibilities of earning income, rather than explore the labor market with high competition with other individuals who have higher educational backgrounds. High age bracket. Majority of the target populations age ranges from 41 to 60 years old, which implies compounding effects of the individuals vulnerability to the already limited livelihood opportunities. Women household heads. Most of the target population are women who head their households, and are usually left to do productive works that are not remunerated. Selfemployment activities would provide them opportunity to earn income, while not sacrificing their other responsibilities at home.

41

Persons with disabilities. In the target population, persons with disabilities are present either as members of the households or as part of the EPHs. Persons with disabilities are very interested to engage in self and wage employment. However, there are no opportunities for the persons with disabilities to access any livelihoods, because service providers and other stakeholders perceive them unable to manage any livelihoods. Older persons. Most of the target population in the household survey and the EPH are older persons. They are very active in community activities particularly in the senior citizen groups. However, their opportunities to having a livelihood are limited because of notions that they are not able to manage their own livelihood. However, it is important to review the livelihood interests they identified to be appropriate, viable and sustainable.

42

CONCLUSION

In view of the above findings, the Project Team has proposed the adoption of the following strategy: REBUILD Livelihood Strategy The REBUILD Project livelihood strategy emanates from the Twin Track approach adopted to pursue parallel objectives of empowerment of the project beneficiaries, as well as the promotion and advocacy for inclusive environment. The approach aims to simultaneously work for the capacity building of the beneficiaries, the EPH household and the Disabled Peoples Organization (DPO)11, as well as work for the promotion of inclusive measures and operating systems of the local government, service providers and relevant stakeholders. The capacity building of the beneficiaries include focused interventions to help the EPH household establish a livelihood activity as a complementary source of income and support for appropriate referrals for specific needs of their household members. The DPO is identified as a beneficiary also, which would be capacitated to take up the interest of the persons with disabilities and vulnerable sector. When capacitated, the DPO is expected to serve as the rightful representative of the vulnerable sector, i.e. persons with disabilities, to the policy formulation and planning processes of the local government. In addition to this, the DPO shall promote and advocate for the right of persons with disabilities to work both at the municipal and barangay levels. Simultaneous to the initiatives for the project beneficiaries, will be the intervention to assist the municipal and barangay local government units to create an environment that provides access to the rights, services, and privileges of vulnerable populations, including persons with disabilities. This will be in the form of policy advocacy, systems promotions, and influencing project implementation and facilities designs to be disability inclusive. The end goal is to create a better socio-economic situation and participation of the target population (vulnerable households/families). Please see figure on the next page.

11

A DPO is defined as an organisation that is led and controlled by disabled people. Another definition suggests: DPOs are representative organisations or groups of persons with disabilities, where persons with disabilities constitute a majority of the overall staff and board, and are well-represented in all levels of the organisation: HI Policy Paper, Support to DPO.

43

TWIN TRACK APPROACH

EMPOWERMENT APROACH Expected Result 1: 250 vulnerable families in Baras Expected result 2: Baras DPO

INCLUSIVE SOCIETY Expected Result 3: Baras local authorities and service providers

Better socio-economic situation and participation of the target population

44

REBUILD Project: Inclusive Local Development Livelihood Focused Project

Empowerment Approach

Empowerment Approach

Inclusive Society
Baras Local Authorities and Service Providers 1. Baras Local Government Unit Municipal and Barangay Level 2. Social focus service providers 3. Livelihood service providers The A-IATAC approach is used:

250 vulnerable families in Baras


1. Identification 1.1 Household survey 1.2 Candidate analysis 1.3. Selection based on the eligibility criteria (Local Decision Committee)

Baras DPO
DPO as an active contributor in the development processes and governance in barangay and at municipal level 1. Building and development internal organizational capacity - Increase membership based - Organizational self-assessment 2. Support DPO to develop action plan to advocate for policy change, inclusive access to quality services - Mainstreaming of disability issues in annual investment plan and comprehensive land use plan (CLUP) - Inclusion in local special bodies at municipal level - Awareness to Service providers/stakeholders for inclusive services

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE EPH and NON EPH through referral network

P E R S O N A L I Z E D S U P P O R T

2. Provision of appropriate livelihood intervention(s) 2.1. Development and validation livelihood interest: a. Further in depth assessments (SEEDS + LF) b. Resource mapping : economic profiling of the area ( SEEDS +LF) c. Review and final validation of the job idea for self employment and wage employment ( HI , TWH, SEEDS) 2.2. Implementation of action plan * Depending on the needs a. WAGED EMPLOYMENT Soft skills development * Technical skills development * Job seeking skills * b. SELF EMPLOYMENT Soft skills development * Technical skills development * o Vocational skills training o Peer training o Community based training Business skills development * o Formal o Informal Access to CAPITAL FUNDING MECHANISM: depending on the socioeconomic profile of the EPH: o In kind grant o In cash grant o Subsidized loan o Regular Loan 2.3. Monitoring and coaching (social + livelihood) - Frequency of visits per month: minimum of 1 to maximum of 2 - Length of support: minimum of 6 months to maximum of 12months depending on the HH situation, the type of business - Managing money and record keeping - Overcome the challenges 3. EPH asset protection and resiliency o Savings mobilization o Enrollment to Philhealth o Develop household contingency plan (link with barangay DRR contingency plan)

Assessment: Initial mapping of service providers XX (number) of service providers will be chosen by the project to make them more disability inclusive. The project will support active mainstream and specialized service providers that are particularly relevant to the target beneficiaries (based on their needs) and that are willing to become more inclusive Information (knowledge) Awareness (attitudes) Training (practices)
focus on willing key stakeholders

Advocacy (policies) Coaching (knowledge,


attitudes, practices and policies on a sustainable manner)

45

INCLUSIVE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT - LIVELIHOOD FOCUSED PROJECT The schema above presents the approaches under the project to improve the socioeconomic situation and participation of the vulnerable population of Baras through the following: Personalized Social Support Approach It is based on the Handicap International Personalized Social Support (PSS) model. The lack of information on existing services is one of the obstacles that vulnerable persons with disabilities and other vulnerable population face. Still, even when persons receive information about services (for instance through field facilitators), this is usually not enough to improve their Quality of Life, particularly for those who are most vulnerable and are the main focus of our project. For vulnerable populations, support services which are local and one-to-one are often needed to improve participation. Handicap International calls this approach to support services Personalized Social Support. PSS is based on a global analysis of a persons life and aims to foster their empowerment by supporting them to develop their own interests and the resources to carry them out with clear objectives and a specific timeframe. The PSS model supports persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups to: 1. Identify their strengths/weaknesses, their skills/areas to develop further and areas of interest to pursue; in our case, interest in livelihood. 2. Look at their life situation and determine what is disabling them, not only on a physical level but on a social level too. 3. Choose and implement a personalized project; in our project, personalized livelihood project. The PSS model differs from other forms of social work in that it is not only based on the person, but incorporates links with services and the environment surrounding the person (family, community, etc.). For most persons with disabilities and other vulnerable populations in the context where Handicap International works, it is only through PSS that our project can commit to a measurable improvement in Quality of Life within the timeframe of a project.

46

Key components of a personalized support: 1. Relation component between the EPH/HH and the livelihood facilitator: "to be with", that is the quality of the relationship (understanding and mutual respect) which will, to a large extent, determine its success. 2. Change and movement towards a better situation: The support is: In front, to spur on, but not too much, because often people run behind the facilitators. Side by side, to share, build together and negotiate. Behind, to allow the person to make their own way, but also to support and pick up or push in the event of failure or fatigue.

3. Time component: Support has a beginning and an end that must be determined in agreement with the person involved. It must comply with the intervention framework (length of the program) but also the pace of the person in question. The goals to achieve and their planning will help in organizing how time is used. Support must never last too long, because it could become a sign of interdependence between the livelihood facilitator and the person supported. Access to Services/Directory of Service Providers In relation to this, a directory of service providers for livelihood (i.e. MFIs, government and non-government initiatives to help the poor engage in livelihood activities, etc., for medical, for social programs and services to help the poor, etc.) has been developed to assist service providers, as well as the beneficiaries themselves, identify appropriate organizations and institutions that can be of help and assistance for specific needs of the EPH households, among others. A. Empowerment of 250 vulnerable households / families of Baras

Some 250 vulnerable households, considered as the poorest of the poor will be targeted for livelihood and social support to improve their living condition. The strategy includes the following major activities.

47

1. Identification of the most vulnerable population as project target beneficiaries or Economic Project Holders (EPHs). The aim of this activity was to determine who among the population are the most vulnerable households using the vulnerability and the eligibility criteria. This was undertaken through a household survey. The survey also aimed to determine the situation of the target barangays in relation to the livelihood opportunities existing locally. This includes the following steps: 1.1 Establishment of pool for candidate analysis The vulnerability criteria was used in establishing a pool of candidates. The criteria include households that have a person with disability or an older person as member, and those households or families that are headed by women. 1.2 Household survey and candidate analyses Candidates from the established pool was interviewed using a questionnaire to generate the socio-economic profile of the household. 1.3 Selection of EPHs based on eligibility criteria by the established Local Decision Committee (LDCs) in each barangay. The eligibility criteria include the following: a) household income is equal to or less than Php8, 505.00 pesos ($ 193) a month; b) the household has no access to micro-finance institution facility during the last two (2) years; and c) the household is willing to participate in project activities. Selected households would become the livelihood beneficiaries called the Economic Project Holders (EPHs). The EPH will be represented by a member of the household, who is qualified and is of working age as well, in managing the livelihood activity identified by the household. A total of 250 EPHs need to be identified and directly assisted in their livelihood by the project. This 250 EPHs were identified from the candidate analyses conducted using the results of the household survey. The screening of candidates will be undertaken by the LDC. The LDC is composed of local leaders and service providers within the community who have good knowledge of the status of households, i.e. barangay officials, barangay health workers (BHWs), barangay nutrition scholars (BNSs), as well as the Livelihood Facilitators of the project. The assumption is that the members of the LDC would know best who are the poorest of the poor and those that need assistance in their community. 2. Provision of Appropriate Livelihood Intervention(s) Interventions to be provided to EPH households will be based on: a) the interest of the member of the household who will undertake the livelihood opportunity; b) what the member is capable of doing and sustaining; c) viability and sustainability of the livelihood idea/interest. To arrive at this, the following steps will be undertaken:

48

2.1 Development and validation of livelihood interest This step is aimed towards determining the soundness or feasibility, as well as the profitability and sustainability, of the livelihood interest. Further specific activities involved under this step include the following. In-depth assessment of livelihood interest to be conducted by the Project Team and technical partners; Resource mapping to assess community economic development, interventions and available services and resources. This will be done through focus group discussion(s). Review and validation of the business or job idea This will be conducted internally by the project officers, partner staff and other stakeholders.

2.2 Implementation of Action Plan The following action plan will be adopted depending on the needs of the EPH, which can be either of the following: Wage Employment. This is remuneration paid by an employer to an employee for a fixed task. The remuneration is based on amount paid at an hourly rate or easily measured reference, i.e. minimum wage per day / monthly salary. In the three barangays of the project, productive members of households are mostly wage workers / employees on contractual basis and paid weekly. Self-employment. The validated livelihood plan will focus on either income generating activity (IGA) and/or some livelihood activity. IGAs are smallscale activities that may be the sole source of income or a supplement to another source, such as farming. The activities may be full-time, part-time and/or seasonal, and are usually based on traditional technologies, local materials and local markets. They are often in rural areas, and are normally part of the informal economy. The livelihood plan could be a start-up, re-start or enhancement of a business or some other productive activity.

For the HH that would like to develop a wage employment project, the following elements could be provided under the REBUILD Project: Soft skills development and peer support. These skills are beneficial for peoples overall interaction and participation in society, not just in relation to livelihood projects. This is to help them gain positive skills, confidence and self-esteem with the help of the peer support. Technical skills development. This is aimed at enhancing particular technical knowledge and skills on a particular area and is assumed to increase opportunities for wage employment. Job seeking skills development. This aims to increase employability of a beneficiary, i.e. EPH who is interested to work under wage employment. A step-by-step orientation on how to establish their goals, and creating resumes, developing their network and links, preparing for an interview and making good decisions are parts of this capacity building intervention.

49

For the HH that would like to develop their own livelihood activity, the following elements need to be developed: Soft skills development. This aims to help them gain positive skills in engaging into business and build confidence and self-esteem. Technical skills development. This will be provided through the conduct of enterprise, vocational, technical skills trainings by tapping into the government service facility, i.e. Technical Education and Service Development Administration (TESDA) and other similar educational agencies. In addition to this, peer training and community vocational training for farming activities will also be tapped. Business skills development. This is aimed at developing the business acumen of an EPH basically to operate, manage and sustain a livelihood activity. This includes knowledge and skills development in the ability to calculate the profit generated, recordkeeping via cashbook, basic financial management, among others. Access to capital may be provided through the following possible mechanisms: In-kind grant. Given in goods, commodities or services rather than cash. A counterpart or a contribution will be required from the EPH before the implementation of the livelihood activity. In-cash grant. Given in the form of cash. A counterpart or a contribution will be required from the EPH before the implementation of the livelihood activity. Subsidized loan. No interest or any additional fees will be added to the capital provided. Moreover, this methodology ensures adaptability and flexibility of the loan services to the EPHs needs and capacity to repay. Regular loans.

NOTE The identified ultra poor EPH households do not have previous experience in livelihood activities, have no link with MFI services, are loan averse and have no capacity to repay. This subgroup will be referred to the poverty alleviation program of the government that provides subsidies and grants to support the households. Furthermore, the REBUIL Project will encourage other service providers to extend livelihood productive activities, e.g. vegetable and food production, income generating activities and saving mobilization initiatives to these households. The purpose is to provide this group with experience in undertaking livelihood activities that they can grow and enhance. The idea is to mainstream them and their activity by linking them to formal MFI facilities, so that they can have access to capital to enhance their undertaking. A critical assumption to this is that the ultra poor EPHs have developed their skills, gained experience, earned some income, and have saved a portion of said income to leverage against a loan.

50

2.3

Monitoring and Coaching Depending on the needs, the EPH household / family members will be visited at least once a month, to do coaching and mentoring in relation to the implementation and status of livelihood activities, social support needs and in building the capacities of persons. Particular concerns that would be taken during these visits will be the status of the operation of the business, financial condition of the undertakings, and records keeping, among others.

3.

Protecting the EPH Assets and Promoting Resiliency General asset protection: This is a protection strategy that aims to prevent or mitigate asset dissipation of the households in case of abnormal circumstances, i.e. calamities and emergency situations. This could be in the form of the following: 3.1 Savings mobilization. A saving scheme will be implemented with every EPH. To facilitate the savings scheme, a service provider will be identified (for example EdM/SEED to provide the services of savings). 3.2 Enrollment of EPH to government health insurance, or PhilHealth. Philhealth is a health insurance program of the government that seeks to enroll every Filipinos under its coverage and provide them protection during times of medical and health needs, i.e. hospitalization. It is a common reality that many of the poor households in the country suffer economic setbacks when a member of the household, specially the head or the breadwinner, is stricken with illness and needs to be hospitalized. Economic resources are depleted and assets converted to cash to pay for hospitalization, medical services, and treatment regimen(s). 3.3 Develop household contingency plan (link with barangay DRR contingency plan)

B.

Empowerment of Baras DPO The project aims to strengthen the Baras Disabled Peoples Organization, so that it successfully promotes and advocates for the rights and needs of persons with disabilities at the municipal and barangay levels. This is being co-implemented with Tahanang Walang Hagdanan (TWH)12 This will be

12

Tahanang Walang Hagdanan, literally translated as House without Steps, is a national NGO whose vision is to have a sustainable and economically viable social enterprise providing continuous holistic development to persons with disabilities and is an organization that adheres to the protection and rehabilitation of the environment.

51

undertaken through the following interventions. 1. Building and development of internal organization capacity (Organizational strengthening (self-assessment, specific trainings and coaching) The REBUILD Project aims to support the DPO with tools and skills to become active in reformulating and implementing its action plan and undertaking resource mobilization activities. The project will support the capacity building of the DPO officers to strategically work for the recognition of the organization as partner in social development of the LGU. The project will also support the initiatives of the DPO to widen its membership base at the barangay levels, as well as equip its officers with appropriate capacities to implement their activities and advocacy promotions. The interventions will range from trainings, seminars, and job training, to monitoring visits, review meetings, exchange visits and individual coaching. In addition, the DPO will be capacitated specifically to advocate for persons with disabilities to be given opportunities to be productively engaged, either through employment or self-initiated productive undertaking, i.e. microbusiness activities buying and selling, repair and service provision, etc. Phases of organization development are as follows: a. Integration : community immersion b. Social investigation through interviews and focus group discussions c. Issue identification and analysis through organizational capacity assessment, local participatory diagnosis, and awareness raising activities d. Strengthening and/or formation of the core group by reinforcement of the eligibility of Baras DPO, capacity development trainings of Baras DPO officers (leadership, resource mobilization, networking and linkages), strengthening of internal rules and regulations, capacity development of peer educators (social and psychological aspect) e. Mobilization and Implementation through identification and certification of persons with disabilities, development of persons with disabilities database, DPO membership recruitment, advocacy measures both at the barangay and municipal levels, and development of IEC materials, campaigns and forums f. Coaching and mentoring by provision of support to barangay-based DPO g. Reflection and evaluation by strategizing based on gaps, shortfalls and strength h. Formalization of community-based organizations (CBOs) through election of barangay-based DPO officers and formation of peer educators. 2. Peer Support Development A peer support training to DPO will be conducted through Tahanang Walang Hagdanan. The peer support development will increase the DPO capacity to better understand their members needs and give appropriate personalized support to their members. Further, to mentor the process and progress of the

52

DPO peer support activities, a peer support facilitator of the project will be hired to ensure this activity. He/she will work closely with the Baras Federation of DPOs, Tahanang Walang Hagdanan and other service providers. 3. Support to DPO to develop an action plan to advocate for their rights, policy change and access to quality services While the Local Government Code (LGC) contains clear provisions for the participation of grassroots organizations in local development planning, meaningful participation is rare. This situation is due notably to the still limited capacities of the DPO. This calls for capacity building activities which are as follows: Identification of needs in advocacy Training on advocacy, coaching/support in conducting advocacy promotions Training on local government system The main objective is to include the DPO to be part of the local special bodies13 at the municipal level, specifically the Municipal Development Council, to bring forth the rights of persons with disabilities and be part of all development programs and activities from planning to designing, monitoring, implementing and evaluating, in order to mainstream disability concerns in the municipal annual investment plan and comprehensive land use plan (CLUP)14. 3. Implementation of specific awareness campaign on human rights The annual information campaigns will be set up in Baras to promote the following: Rights of persons with disabilities and inclusive approach Role of the representative organization

Project initiatives will target the general population through various media, posters, newspapers and sensitization sessions. The awareness campaign will collaborate with institutions and organizations such as the Department of Social Welfare and Development at municipal and provincial levels. The DPO will be part of the sensitization campaign and will receive adequate training on how to transfer the information. Its members will be capacitated to respond to enquiries on vulnerability and civic participation by concerned individuals and groups, being familiar with the communication tools and having improved their knowledge on disability.

13

Local special bodies created under Republic Act 7160 (local government code). The compositions of the local special bodies

are as follows: local development council, local school board, local health board and local peace in order. 14 CLUP is a five-year development plan developed by the Local Government Unit.... (cf. RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of the Philippines)

53

Tools will be adapted according to the specific needs of persons with disabilities which are as follows: IEC, media campaign, awareness events (i.e. during International Day of Persons with Disabilities)

Above mentioned intervention and activities are expected to result in the following: Increase of awareness level of DPO officers on their rights and role Publication of accessible information, education and communication (IEC) materials Increase of participation of persons with disabilities in community activities and other events C. Promotion of Inclusive Society A third major objective of the project is to make the capacities of Baras local authorities, service providers and other stakeholders better able to address the needs of persons with disabilities. The project is working particularly with the DPO. A significant number in the membership of the DPO are members who are also elderly and have disabilities. Identified children with disabilities are considered as members of the DPO. Elderly or senior citizens have their own organization under the senior citizens group. Many of the elderly people opt to join this group as this receives more, if not equal, privileges (with the persons with disabilities) and services from government programs, i.e. health insurance, social welfare insurance (where most of the members are retired workers and employees). Women-headed households are almost always targeted under the program under Gender and Development of the local government and other womens groups. Thus, the DPO has been consciously taken as a more strategic target organization to represent the vulnerable groups under the project. There are different types of services that together can form an inclusive system of services. Mainstream services are regular services available in a community (education, health, housing, sports, transportation, and information) which are needed by the entire population, including persons with disabilities. Specialized services are services that meet the specific needs of a person with disability (rehabilitation center, special housing, sheltered employment, early detection/intervention) which are needed to address sometimes the more complex and specific needs of persons with disabilities

54

Support services are services that assist a person to be able to participate in mainstream activities/services. The aim is to increase persons with disabilities self-determination and participation in the 15 community.

Inclusive Contingency plan and Investment plan with the Local Government Unit of Baras The approach to be undertaken to achieve this objective are as follows: Assessment through initial mapping of social and livelihood service providers Identifying the service providers with mainstream services and specialized services (if not inclusive) (stakeholders mapping/directory of services) Six (6) service providers will be chosen by the project to make them more disability inclusive. The project will support active mainstream and specialized service providers that are particularly relevant to the target beneficiaries (based on their needs) and that are willing to become more inclusive Information sharing to increase knowledge and create interest among service providers identified Raising awareness among stakeholders to create consciousness on the issues confronting the persons with disabilities and their rights and needs to participate and be productive members of society, as well as engage the former as equal members of society. These include the livelihoods, municipal offices and human rights stakeholders based on the identified service providers Training to improve practices of barangay and municipal staff Carrying out advocacy work to change policies or to inform decisions on policymaking to service providers such as livelihoods and human rights stakeholders Coaching to improve knowledge, attitudes, practices and policies targeting the whole organization including staff at different levels such as the barangays and municipal staff

15

SOURCE: Personalized social support: Thoughts, Methods and Tools in an Approach of Proximity Social Services

55

ANNEXES
REBUILD PROJECT Household Rapid Survey Form No. 1 Part A. Informed Consent

We are conducting a Household Survey for gathering baseline information. Your voluntary participation is requested so we may learn more about the condition of the community that will be used as reference of the REBUILD Project. Our questionnaire will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes. The information will be treated with strict confidentiality. If you are willing to participate, please sign this form as consent. Thank you for your cooperation.

Date: _______________________________ _________________________________ HH Code: Signature ___________________________ over printed name of respondent Interviewer: _________________________ Respondent/s Details: Name of Respondent Age Civil Status Position in the Household

Part B. Household Survey 1. Household General Information 1.1. List of Household Members
Occupation/Business (Primary Source of Income) & Employment Status Monthly Income(esti mate in the past 3 months)

Name

Position in the HH

Age

Gender

Civil Status

Highest Educational Attainment

56

1.2. Household Address:

House No. Lot No. Blk. No. Street Village Sitio/Purok ________, ________, _______, ___________________, __________________, ____________________, Barangay Municipality Province __________________, _________________________, ________________________________________

1.3. Status of Residency: Formal

Informal

1.4. Type of Housing: Owned, not mortgaged Owned, mortgaged Monthly amortization: P ___________________ Rented Monthly rental: P ___________________ Rent free/Living with relatives/Care-taking Others, please specify: _________________________ 2. Eligibility 2.1. Vulnerability Classification (check the appropriate selection) 2.1.1. Do you have family member/s with disability/impairment? If yes, please answer table below: Name of family member/s with disability Type of impairment Classification Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial 2.1.2. Do you have family members who are older persons? Yes No 2.1.3. Is the head of household a single parent (woman)? Yes No Cause/s of disability

57

2.2. Vulnerability Assessment 2.2.1. Ability to perform roles and functions (to be answered by vulnerable members themselves)
What is the major/bigg est effect of the condition in dealing with disaster (see list)

Vulnerable member (refer to legend of list of HH members)

Vulnerability (i.e. PWD, OP. Single head woman)

Does this condition affect daily activities?

What is the MAJOR /or Biggest effect on daily activities ( see list)

Does this condition affect ability to work/enga ge in selfemployme nt activities? Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

What is the major /biggest effect on employment /selfemployment (see list)

Does this condition affect ability to deal with calamities/ disasters

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

2.2.2. Personal needs, adjustments and access to support services (to be answered by vulnerable members)

How do you cope with the challenges/difficulties mentioned above?

What are the types of support needed to address the main difficulties?

What are the types of support that you are currently receiving? From whom? Please enumerate.

As PWD/ OP/ SP, are you currently a member of any organization? If yes, please indicate. How does this benefit you as an individual?

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

58

2.2.3. What are the PRIMARY difficulties faced by the family due to having a member who is a PWD/ Older Person or being headed by a single parent? (to be answered by the family)

Economic

Social

Other (write major/primary difficulty. May be both)

Household expenses Expenses in caring for vulnerable member Other economic related

Stigma

Exclusion from Services Other social related

3. Household Economic Situation 3.1. Household Cash Flow (estimate for the past 12 months) Outflow Description Food Health (including personal hygiene) Physical Assets (including improvements) Education Utilities Job related expenses Leisure activities Others Total Outflow Inflow Description Waged employment Self-employment Others: Total Inflow Net Surplus/Shortage

59

3.2. Current Household Coping Mechanism 3.2.1. Source of Mitigating Measures Family/ Relatives/ Friends Money Lender Sari-sari Store Govt Programs (4ps, etc.) NGO/ Private Sector Programs Cooperatives MFIs/ GFIs Rural Banks Informal Savings and Credit Group Self-initiated Savings Others

3.2.2. Purpose of Mitigating Measures (most important) Food Education Health (include personal hygiene) Others

3.2.3. Frequency of Mitigating Measures Daily Weekly Bi-monthly Monthly Quarterly Semi-annually Annually

4. External Support Accessed by Family 4.1. Are you receiving any assistance/support from other Organization? Yes No Name of Institutions ____________________________________________________________

Type of assistance/support ________________________________________________________ Date Started __________________________________________ How often are the assistance/ support? ______________________________________________________ Status of Project Operating Temporary Closed Closed Others

60

Reasons/Remarks:

5. Potential Candidate 5.1. Potential Candidate Analysis Tool Name Time No Willingness/Interest Counterpart Capacity/Gaps

Yes

Remarks/ Recommendations: Recommended for candidate analysis Not recommended for candidate analysis Remarks:

Reviewed by:

____________________________________ Signature over printed name of interviewer

__________________ Date

61

REBUILD PROJECT Candidate Analysis Form No. 2 Date: _______________________________ Reference Code: ______________________ Interviewer: __________________________ Part A. Candidate Background 1. Personal Information Name: _________________________________________ Age: ______ Date of Birth: ________

Gender: ____________ Civil Status: ____________ Position in the Household: __________________ Occupation: ______________ ____________________ Contact No.: ________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Eligibility 2.1. What qualifies you to become a candidate EPH? I am a person with disability (PWD) Disability: ______________________ I am an older person (OP) I am a single parent (woman) I am a member of a household with a PWD OP single parent head (woman) Others, please specify __________________________________________________ 3. Vulnerability (answer if candidate is PWD, OP or SP, otherwise proceed to 4) 3.1. Will your condition or situation as a PWD, OP or single parent affect your potential livelihood or employment? Yes If yes, how? _____________________________________________________________________ If no, proceed to 4. No

62

3.2. What type/s of support or assistance do you need (in relation to answer in 3.1 only) to be able to start a livelihood activity/employment? Personalized social support, specify:________________________________________________

Remarks/Conclusion/Referral:

4. Candidate Literacy Information 4.1. Basic Language/Communication Skills Read Filipino None Limited Working knowledge Proficient Read English None Limited Working knowledge Proficient Write None Limited Working knowledge Proficient Write None Limited Working knowledge Proficient Speak None Limited Working knowledge Proficient Speak None Limited Working knowledge Proficient Understand None Limited Working knowledge Proficient Understand None Limited Working knowledge Proficient

4.2. Basic Arithmetic Skills Counting None Limited Working knowledge Proficient Computation None Limited Working knowledge Proficient

63

5. Candidate Skills 5.1. Livelihood Skills Cooking Basic Electricity Dressmaking Driving Selling Food Processing Basic Electronics Others, please specify: _________________________ 6. Trainings Attended Basic Plumbing Mechanic Massage Bartending Cosmetology/Hairdresser House Painting Masonry Upholstery Carpentry Art Painting Photography Welding Gardening/Landscaping

Type of Training

Date

Duration

Certificates/Diploma/ License Obtained

7. Candidate Work Experience 7.1. Do you have experience/s in waged employment, either formal or informal? If yes, please provide your work history below: Status of Monthly Length of Reason/s for Description Work/ Location Income Work leaving Contract

7.2. Do you and/or your family have any prior experience in self-employment or running income generating activities? If yes, please provide details below: ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________

64

7.3. Have you secured any social protection service/s in your previous employment/s? If yes, please indicate: Social security (SSS, GSIS) Pag-IBIG Fund PhilHealth Medical Insurance Service Provider: ________________________ Life Insurance Service Provider: ________________________ Part B. Conceptualization of Livelihood Activity 8. Employment Preference 8.1. What kind of employment would you like to explore at present in order to generate income?

Nature Self-employment Start-up Enhancement Waged employment Uncertain at the moment, but interested Not interested Please provide a justification for your answer:

Brief Description

8.2. What livelihood support do you think you need in order to succeed in this employment? Financial, specify: _____________________________________________________________ Skills development, specify: _____________________________________________________ Others, specify: _______________________________________________________________ 8.3. What type of support from your family or your community would help you to succeed more? Explain. Monetary support Material/physical support Soft skills support Mobility support Counselling Others: _______________________

65

8.4. What are you willing to do to secure a job or to be employed? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ 9. Family Involvement and Level of Motivation 9.1. What kind of support will the family provide to the candidate? Monetary support Material/physical support Soft skills support Mobility support Counselling Others: ________________ 9.2 In case of sickness or incapacitation of candidate, what will the family members do to support the candidate? Why? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 9.3. Will you allow the candidate to attend trainings (if necessary for the project?) Why? Yes No Conditional ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Part C. Quality of Life 10. Basic Needs Assessment 10.1. Economic Needs (Do you agree with the following statement: Household has sufficient cash resources within the past year to cover expenses for Measure/Score 2 Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree

Category Household cash flow (separate category) Food Health Education Physical Assets

1 Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree

4 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree

Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree

66

10.2. Social Needs (Do you agree with the following statements?) Category I am able to participate in community activities I am satisfied/contented with my life I have self-confidence I feel that I belong to my neighborhood and/or community Part D. Interviewers Note 11. Candidate Assessment 11.1. Facilitators recommendation Qualified Not Qualified Waged Employment Self-Employment For Training Peer Training Apprenticeship Measure/Score 2 3 Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree

1 Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree

4 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree

Community Vocational Training Vocational Training Center

For referral/social support Social welfare Mental Health and medical Rehabilitation Others, please specify ____________________________________________ Notes/Remarks:

67

11.2. Documents to provide, if qualified: Police Clearance Barangay Clearance Certificate of Good Morale Court Certificate HOA Certificate MSWD Certificate

Reviewed by: ___________________________________ Signature over Printed Name and Position

68

69

If you need further information or technical support, please contact:

Handicap International - Philippines Program 12D The Valero Tower, 122 Valero St. (accessible entrance at 122 San Agustin St.) Salcedo Village, Makati City 1227 Tel: +63 (2) 812 6990, +63(0) 915 332 8690 Fax: +63 (2) 892 4583 mla-office@handicapinternational.ph Project Site Office: Solem Building, 212 JP Rizal Barangay Santiago Baras, Province of Rizal Tel: +63 (02) 234-5404

For more information and to download a copy of this publication please visit www.handicapinternational.ph

70