CHAPTER IV - DISCUSSION In the present study, the researchers explore the ability of the families living in a resettlement site

to cope with life's challenges after experiencing a natural disaster. The researchers propose that families are able to bounce forward to meet problems in the future by involving themselves to religious, social and/or political programs offered within the community. As proposed, the results suggest that families manifest high family resilience when they are involved in the programs. In a study of fostering family resiliency, Benzies (2008), mentioned that involving in the community gives families an access to larger networks of information regarding health care, education, and resources. It also gives them a sense of belongingness and appreciation of their community through the relationships built during the duration of the program. The results of the study affirms what the social and economic resource, one of the key process in Walsh's Family Resilience Framework that help reduce stress and vulnerability during high-risk situations, stated that the involvement in community groups and faith congregations give vital empowerment in times of trouble, offering practical and emotional support to the families. Walsh's framework is further strengthened through the focus group discussion conducted by the researchers. The families have point out that involving their families gave them a venue to express their thoughts, insights and sometimes even problems, allowing the other members of the group to help in the problem-solving process. It also enables them to make meaning of catastrophic and challenging situations providing them a positive outlook and a hopeful future. Lastly, it enables them to mend broken relationships within their families and further strengthen family resilience through mutual support, collaboration and commitment by the family members.

The focus group discussion have also led the families to mention that the number of programs being implemented by the local government and the different NGO have decreased dramatically since they were relocated at the resettlement site. According to the families, the local government intentionally decreased the number of programs to give them the chance to recover on their own hard work. This dramatic decrease of programs implemented may have influenced the result of the study which is a weak positive relationship between family resiliency and community involvement as the families only have few venues where they can involve their families with. Nonetheless, some of the families who involve themselves in the community mentioned that they have already recovered while some said that they are still in the process of recovering from the catastrophic event; thus making the families resilient. The resiliency of the families is confirmed through the high mean score of 5.67 of the family resiliency scale. Furthermore, the families have different levels of community involvement hence explaining the different rates of recovery. As any other studies would have, the present study also has few limitations. The gathering of data was conducted from November 2012 to January 2013 more than a year after the typhoon struck the city. The perception of the families regarding the traumatic event may have change over time; and the way how families cope with a few days after the disaster may have changed months after the event. Another limitation of this present study is the geographical background of the respondent families. The different barangays in the city have their own practices and collective perspective of things and experiences. The previous residential area of the families could have contributed on the way they perceive and cope with the stress after the catastrophe. Lastly, right after the destruction of typhoon Sendong, a huge number of activities and initiatives of the different local, national and international units were offered for the survivors to involve in. These initiatives that took place when the survivors were still in evacuation centers and/or tent cities, which could made a bearing on

their family resilience were not considered. The present study is only limited to the involvement of the survivors after they have been relocated at the resettlement site. To further improve the study, future researchers could explore on the programs and activities the families have involved themselves after the typhoon. They could also look into the demographics of each family respondent before the calamity has struck as well as how they cope after the traumatic event to increase the variability of the research. In this way, future researchers could see patterns of behavior of families coming from different barangays before and after a calamity. It is also recommended to explore more of the protective factors that may have influence the ability of the families to bounce forward from a natural disaster. Lastly, if a similar study is conducted, the researchers may conduct it at least 1 month after the calamity in order to give enough time for the families to recover, exhibit patterns of family resilience and may have immediate results for possible interventions. The researchers further recommend that the heads of resettlement sites support and invest on creating programs that promotes spiritual, social and political consciousness for these programs foster family resiliency. The heads are also recommended to encourage the families to participate in these kinds of engagements. These programs are important since the relocation sites are not only a place where the survivors of a typhoon are transferred, but it is already a community where every family trust each other and grow together. Promoting community involvement is a very good venue to create resilient family and in the long run, resilient community.