Hearing the Voices of Domestic Workers

An Exploratory Impact Evaluation of the Visayan Forum Foundations Kasambahay

Human Development Program in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

An Undergraduate Thesis Presented

By

Jaime Luis G. Sy

Submitted to the Development Studies Program of

Ateneo de Manila University in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts, major in Development Studies

May 23, 2016

Abstract

Hearing the Voices of Domestic Workers

An Exploratory Impact Evaluation of the Visayan Forum Foundations Kasambahay
Human Development Program in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

Jaime Luis G. Sy

Domestic workers are an integral facet of Philippine culture, being widely prevalent
while bringing about economic benefits. Despite this, domestic workers remain to be
an invisible sector, subjected to abuses such as low pay, inhuman working hours, and
even verbal and physical abuse in extreme cases. Visayan Forum, Inc. (VF) tries to
answer this with its Kasambahay Human Development Program. The program trains
domestic workers on skills that are not only applicable to domestic worker, but also
transferrable to other occupations (in addition to other facets of their lives). The impact
evaluation adheres to the post-development perspective (Arturo Escobar), founded on
the domestic workers own definition of well-being. This was obtained using the Voices
of the Poor Methodology while other aspects of program effectiveness were covered
under the studys framework Phillips Five-Level ROI Framework. The studys
results showed that the program indeed made a positive impact not only in the lives of
the respondents, but also their employers inside and outside domestic work. Their
improvement in terms of knowledge and skills proved to be instrumental in this regard,
while their improved social skills and individual character (brought about by the
programs formative activities) led to improvements in other facets of their lives (e.g.
improved relationships, better hygiene at home, etc.). The program has also uplifted
their own state of well-being (in accordance to their own definition), lessened the
adverse effects of shocks they typically suffer from, and has put them in a better position
to move up in society both economically and socially. However, despite all these
improvements and positive outcomes, several concerns were expressed over different
aspects of the program, typically centered on inadequacies. Lastly, the program has an
issue with setting a coherent goal to indicate success. With the studys results and the
Voice of Domestic Workers, the Kasambahay Human Development Program should
work towards taking its participants out of domestic work and find employment in
higher paying occupations.

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background: Domestic Work in the Philippines ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background: Visayan Forum Foundation, Inc. (VF) ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Background: Kasambahay Human Development Program ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Significant of the Research .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
1.5 Scope and Limitations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE (RRL) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
2.1 Who are Domestic Workers? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
2.2 What is an Impact Evaluation? .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
2.3 What does Impact Really Mean? ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
2.4 How Should Impact Be Measured? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20
2.5 Phillips Five-Level ROI Framework ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
3. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
3.1 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Review of Related Literature: Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
4. Empirical Framework (Methodology) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Research Design.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
4.3 Materials ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
4.4 Schedule ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 30
4.5 Data Gathering ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
4.6 Data Processing .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
5. Results and Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
5.1 Results................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
A. Demographic profile ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
B. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
C. In-depth Interviews ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
D. Other findings ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 51
5.2 Analysis................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 54
A. Phillips Five-Level Framework ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54
B. Impact According to Domestic Workers Voices ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 60
C. Refining Program Objectives........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
6. Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 66
6.1 Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
A. Inquiries on definition of well-being, shocks faced, and insights on upward mobility ....................................................................................................................................... 66
B. Program Participation ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
C. Reaction, Satisfaction, and Planned Action ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
D. Learning (increase in knowledge) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
E. Application and Implementation (change in behavior) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
F. Impact Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69
G. Return on Investment (ROI) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 69
H. Impact: Voices of the Poor .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69
6.2 Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 71
A. Consultation with Domestic Workers and Make Changes to Modules/Activities .............................................................................................................................................. 71
B. Linking Participants to Services ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71
C. Aid Finding Employment Outside Domestic Work .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 72
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
8. APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77
8.1 Appendix 1: Figures 1 to 4.1 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 77
8.2 Appendix 2: SPUD Kasambahay Human Development Program List of Partner-recipients from 2009-2014 (Tracker) ...................................................................................... 82
8.3 Appendix 3: Data-gathering tool (English) Focus Group Discussion................................................................................................................................................................... 83
8.4 Appendix 4: Data-gathering tool (Bisaya) Focus Group Discussion .................................................................................................................................................................... 86
8.5 Appendix 5: Data-gathering Tool (English) Interview ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
8.6 Appendix 6: Data-gathering Tool (Bisaya) Interview ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 103

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background: Domestic Work in the Philippines
Domestic workers are an integral part of Filipino society. In the countrys
context, employing domestic help is heavily embedded in its culture and is truly a part
of everyday life. There are prevalent traditions that perpetuate this facet of Philippine
culture that are socially accepted and widespread in occurrence, such as urban (and
even overseas) migration for the purpose of employment and accepting less well-off
relatives as boarders in exchange for household help (Sayres, 2007).
To put things in perspective, based on the July 2010 Labor Force Survey,
domestic workers aged fifteen (15) years and above constituted approximately 3.2%
of the entire Philippine population within the aforementioned age range at that point
in time. This may not appear to be a large sum, but this actually equates to an estimate
of 1.925 million domestic helpers (DOLE, 2010). Furthermore, there were at least 1.2
million domestic helpers aged 15 years and above back in 2001, showing the 57%
increase in this particular labor force over the ten-year span. It is also important to
consider that the figures are understated, with a significant number of domestic
workers not being included in the labor force surveys (ILO, 2011).

Number of domestic workers

(2001-2010)

Domestic workers in the labor force

(15 years-old and above) (2010)

2,500,000

3.2

57%

2,000,000

1.925 Million

1,500,000
1,000,000

Domestic workers

500,000
96.8

0
2001

Rest of labor force

2010

Sources: Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE); International Labour Organization (ILO)

Figure 1.1: Domestic workers in the labor force through the years (2001-2010)

It can be argued that there are economic benefits to employing domestic help.
Its affordability in the country allows women in middle and upper-income classes to
leave their household duties and enter the work force. Domestic work also contributes
to the alleviation of national poverty by providing an important source of employment
and income, mainly for the poorest and most vulnerable members of society women and children from rural areas (Sayres, 2007). Women make up 84% of
domestic helpers in the Philippines, whereas they comprise only 38% of entire labor
force. In 2001, 9.2% of women in the labor force cited domestic work as their
primary occupation, a number that rose to 11.5% in 2010 (ILO, 2011).

Labor force (gender) (2010)

Domestic worker labor force (gender)

(2010)

16%
38%
62%

Women

Women
84%

Men

Men

Growth of women in domestic work

(2001-2010)

14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2001

2010

Sources: Sayres (2007); International Labour Organization (ILO)

Figure 1.2: Women in the domestic work labor force through the years (2001-2010)

Despite these numbers and economic benefits, domestic work remains to be an

invisible sector. The nature of the work is that it occurs behind private doors,
beyond monitoring provisions and capacities of labor laws and enforcement
authorities respectively. Domestic helpers are expected to work continually and for
long hours, but must be as unseen as possible, while being often being perceived as
unskilled, womens work. Exacerbating the issue, available information on the
living and working conditions of domestic helpers has brought forth serious concerns
about labor violations, including inhumane working hours, forced labor, trafficking
and other abuses (Sayres, 2007).

Domestic workers work for nine (9) hours daily on average. This amount is
much higher than that of wage employees in private establishments, who work for 8.1
hours per day. Though the difference may appear to be insignificant, the numbers
behind the national average are alarming, with a big segment of domestic workers
working unreasonably long hours. Thirty-three percent (33%) of them work nine (9)
to ten (10) hours per day, while 20% work eleven (11) or more hours daily. Live-in
workers are especially exploited in this sense. 32% of women and 25% of men put up
at least eleven (11) or more hours of work daily, while many of them are unable to
enjoy a full weekly rest day. The risks associated with live-in arrangements between
households and domestic helpers is that the line between working time and rest
period tends to be blurred while live-out or flexible working time may be
interpreted as availability of service as and when required by the family (ILO, 2011).

Ave. working hours: domestic workers

(2010)

Domestic workers vs. wage employees

(working hours) (2010)

10
8
6
4

8.10

33%

9.00

47%

2
Wage employees
(private
establishments)

Domestic workers
20%

9-10 hrs./day
11 hrs. and above
Below 9 hrs.

Sources: Sayres (2007); International Labour Organization (ILO)

Figure 1.3: Domestic workers and working hours (2010)

Despite this, domestic workers are also paid very poor and are in fact the
lowest paid among wage employees. As of 2010, the average daily pay received by
domestic workers was PhP 132.60 for the Philippine as a whole. Though their wages
have risen slightly since 2004, the real value has been declining for majority of the
six-year span.

Sources: Sayres (2007); International Labour Organization (ILO)

Figure 1.4: Real values of domestic workers average daily wage

This becomes especially problematic when working hours are taken into account.
Live-in domestic workers earn only 60% of what their live-out counterparts receive in
wages. However, live-in workers receive a meagre 40% of what live-out workers earn
in hourly wages. The common rationale amongst employers is that live-in domestic
workers are provided with free food, water, electricity, and lodging upon
employment. It is unfortunate that this brings forth an opportunity for abuse,
especially when the monetary value assigned to food and lodging is set unilaterally
by the employer, without clear criteria or without a limit. Furthermore, it should also
be noted that households that employ live-in domestic workers enjoy an extra
benefit, which is the near constant availability of services, and flexibility of working
time, which probably should also be valued as well (ILO, 2011).

Hourly Wages: Live-in vs. live-out domestic workers

100

PESOS

80
60
40
20

40%

0
Live-in domestic worker

Live-out domestic worker

Sources: Sayres (2007); International Labour Organization (ILO)

Figure 1.5: Hourly wages of live-in and live-out domestic workers (2010)

Low wages and inhuman working conditions are only two of the many abuses
domestic workers face in the Philippines, and the data cited does not even include
migrant workers abroad. Needless to say, despite the benefits that may have come
with it, the prevalence of domestic work has brought about the exploitation and
marginalization of domestic workers. The degree by which it is embedded into
Philippine culture is very telling as to how various social structures and issues
exacerbate the problem further. Simply put, the problem is furthered by a combination
of several factors. For example, there appears to be a lack of employment
opportunities in rural areas with adequate income (which is especially problematic for
women, since blue collar jobs are more accessible to men). Couple this with the
widespread nature of domestic work, inadequate legislative measures in terms of
provisions and monitoring mechanisms, and the aforementioned socially accepted
traditions (among others); it is not hard to see how such is the case.
With these being said, what has been done to remedy this issue? Positive steps
have been taken in recent years to examine the situation of domestic workers in the
Philippines, as well those that work abroad as overseas foreign workers (OFWs).
Beginning in the mid-1990s, the International Labour Organization (ILO), local nongovernment organizations, and regional and international partners have paid closer
attention to the marginalization of domestic helpers. This has come in the form of
consultations, as well as various programs and other interventions that attempt to
solve the said problem (Sayres, 2007). The pioneering institution in the Philippines in
this regard is the Visayan Forum Foundation, Inc. (VF).
1.2 Background: Visayan Forum Foundation, Inc. (VF)
Established in 1991, VF was the first organization in the Philippines to
specifically address the issues of child and adult domestic workers. It is also one of
5

the forerunners in the international promotion of the rights of domestic workers and
the prevention of child labor (Sayres, 2007). It is a non-government, non-stock, and
non-profit organization that delivers innovative work for the promotion of the welfare
of marginalized migrants, especially those in the invisible and informal sectors, such
as domestic helpers, and trafficked women and children" (VF: Organizational
History). In carrying out its advocacy, VF has been globally recognized with several
awards and citations (VF Official Website).
VF envision[s] a society where people are free, protected, and empowered to
explore opportunities without the risk of exploitation and slavery. The foundation
has pursued the achievement of this goal through its mission innovat[ing] lasting
solutions to end exploitation and modern slavery. This takes form in various
programs, research and lobbying efforts, partnerships, and social movements that are
in line with its advocacy (VF Official Website).
1.3 Background: Kasambahay Human Development Program
VFs flagship program among interventions targeted at domestic workers is the
Kasambahay Program. The following are its main components (Sayres, 2007):
1) The provision of direct services, temporary shelters, social security coverage, and educational
opportunities to child domestic workers
2) The institutionalization and strengthening of domestic worker associations
3) The development of laws and policies for the protection of domestic work, in particular child
domestic work
4) The establishment of a Resource Centre on child domestic workers

The program has been implemented in several areas across the country, such as Metro
Manila, Batangas, Davao, Bacolod, and Dumaguete (among others). However, its
implementation in Dumaguete, which started in 2009, is unique in having a training

component (as termed by VF officials), otherwise known as the Kasambahay Human

Development Program. The main proponents of the program are VF and St. Paul
University, Dumaguete (SPUD), in collaboration with other institutions such as
Microsoft Philippines and Smart Communications (among others). It focuses on
improving the lifelong learning, skills and personality of [domestic workers] of
Dumaguete and its neighboring towns and cities in the province by providing
technology skills, housekeeping-hospitality skills, first-aid skills, personality
development program, moral-spiritual development activities and other related skills
and knowledge through informal and modular sessions coupled with hands-on and
certificates of participation and course completion.
In unison, these institutions gather currently working domestic workers that
are allowed to study part-time by their employers and urge them to join these
programs within the training component. The training sessions are held every Sunday
at the SPUD campus, administered by volunteer students of SPUD-Community
Extension Service which stems from the Paulinian Volunteers for Community
Development, SPUD HRM-T Society, and SPUD College of Accounting and
Business Administration (among others).
From 2009 to 2014, VF has identified a total of 121 participants. This means that
the program has an annual average of approximately 24 graduates. It is important to
note that the participation of domestic workers in the program ultimately depends on
their availability (or perhaps, based on employers convenience). As such, perfect
attendance is not to be expected and not all qualify for graduation. According to
Romualdo Dondee Seneris II, participants are required to attend at least 80% of the
sessions to receive certification of completing the program. In effect, the 121
individuals monitored by VF constitute those that fulfilled the said requirements.
7

The figure below contains the activities and module contents of the
aforementioned program.
Activities/Module
Orientation

Agri-Training
Hygiene & Sanitation in
the Kitchen

Simple Cookery

Inter-Personal
Relationship (IPR)
Personality Development

Basic Household Health

Tips & First-Aid
Fruit Carving
Microsoft Unlimited
Potential (STEP-UP)
Computer Literacy

Business and other

related Livelihood Skills

Basic Education / Story

Telling Seminar

ECO-SWARM Literacy
Culmination Activity

Description
Part of VFs introductory orientation to domestic workers who are interested to partake
in the training component, which discusses the history of the NGO, human trafficking
in the Philippines, common abuses to domestic workers, as well as their rights and
privileges; pre-requisite in availing of other subcomponents
Focuses on basic gardening/farming techniques
Module Contents

Table Skirting

Napkin Folding

Setting the Table & Service

Table Etiquette

Guest Relations & Housekeeping

Module Contents

Baking Cookies/Brownies

Baking Cakes

Preserve Menu

Preparing different desserts

Contains lessons on basic etiquette, proper presentation of ones self, and the like
Module Contents

Good Grooming

Self-esteem & Confidence

Decorum & Courtesy

Stress Management
Module Contents

Home Safety

Basic First-Aid/ Basic Aid Life Support BP taking

Module Contents

Computer Fundamental

Spreadsheet Fundamental

Word Processing Fundamental

Excel Processing Fundamental

Digital Media Fundamental

Internet/World Wide Web Fundamental

Module Contents

Micro-enterprise Building

Financial Literacy (e.g. financial discipline; appropriate financial

management skills)
In partnership with Smart Communications, domestic workers are taught the value of
reading books and the potential of imparting values through story telling; teaches
story telling techniques and encourages domestic workers to read to or teach their
loved ones how to read; part of Smarts The Storytelling Project
Educates domestic workers on solid waste management and recycling
Participants who qualify for graduation join the culmination activity, wherein SPUD
presents them with a certificate that certifies their completion of the program
TOTAL

# of Sessions

1
3

2
2

2
1
1
35

Figure 1.6: Activities/module of Kasambahay Human Development Program

The rationale behind creating the program could perhaps be attributed to the
assumption that domestic work is generally associated with low human capital.
Although this may very well be true, further compounding the problem is that there
appears to be a pay penalty for being a domestic worker. Utilizing a log regression
of the basic hourly pay of wage employees (private sector, private sector: non-

agriculture, and wage employees not in professional or managerial occupations)

against the following characteristics: employed as a domestic worker or not; male or
female; age; and educational attainment, the authors found that domestic workers, by
the fact of her [or ] his occupation alone, is paid at least 40% less than other wage
employees of the same sex, age and educational characteristics (Sayres, 2007).
Clearly, there is a need for capability building in the context of Philippine domestic
workers, who experience compounded problems associated with human capital. This
issue is recognized and reflected by the programs objectives, which are as follows:
1) To recognize the valuable contribution of household workers to our society by giving them the
opportunity to learn and enhance certain skills necessary for their work.
2) To help mitigate the vulnerability of the household workers by helping them in developing
their socio-personal responsibility and enhancing their spiritual-moral life.
3) To prepare women and youth from vulnerable populations and victims of trafficking for the
job market by providing IT skills training, livelihood programs and psycho-spiritual
formation.
4) To provide opportunities and avenues for our volunteers to offer and share their knowledge,
skills and faith to our partner-recipients.

Evidently, VFs solution to the trafficking or oppression of domestic workers is

to increase their human capital, not only in terms of capability (skills) but psychospiritual formation as well. There appears to be a two-pronged approach at play here,
one aspect catering to enhancing domestic work skills and another that increases their
capabilities to perform tasks outside domestic work. Romualdo Dondee Seneris II (VF
Regional Director) says that the former makes participants more valuable to their
employers, making income raises possible. On the other hand, Sharmila Parmanand
(VF Policy Director) claims that the latter gives domestic workers a choice as to
what career they wish to pursue. Simply put, they can choose between domestic work

and a profession in a different field. It must be recognized that there are overlaps
between the two, in that skills in domestic work such as cleaning and cooking are
applicable to other service-related jobs.
It is possible to perceive this as a problematic approach, in that there is a tendency
for the program to perpetuate the very structures that oppress domestic workers.
However, VF recognizes domestic work as a noble profession and the organization
advocates to eradicate the abuses committed against them. At the same time, a
program that purely promotes domestic workers to leave their jobs may serve as a
conflict of interest for their employers, hindering the likelihood of allowing their
employees to participate in the program. Because of these reasons, VF has opted to
increase participants value as domestic workers while promoting knowledge and
skills that are not only applicable to domestic work, but are transferrable to other
professions as well.
Although this should be recognized as a practical solution, serving as a balance
act, it is possible to perceive such as one that poses problems in terms of setting
program goals and objectives. There are two possible success indicators for this
perspective: (1) to produce high-performing domestic workers or (2) to have
participants leave domestic work upon graduation. This, however, essentially assumes
domestic work to be inescapably oppressive and that it is impossible to raise the
returns (monetary and nonmonetary) and dignity associated with the profession. With
this in mind, the program uniquely proposes a third success indicator: (3) to raise the
returns and dignity of graduates in domestic work.

10

1.4 Significant of the Research

Objectives and Purpose of the Study
VF intends to replicate or scale-up the said training component of the
Kasambahay Program to its other (and perhaps future) implementation sites. As such,
the primary objective of the study (as requested by the NGO) is to (1) perform an
impact evaluation for VF in terms of the programs activities. This is not only to give
VF The purpose of this is to equip VF in the aforementioned replication process, such
that the NGO is aware of the components effectiveness. To quote Gertler, et. al
(2007), impact evaluations are needed to inform policy makers on a range of
decisions, from curtailing inefficient programs, to scaling up interventions that work,
to adjusting program benefits, to selecting among various program alternatives.
However, given that the programs nature makes it problematic to set coherent
goals and objectives, the said impact evaluation should serve as one that is
exploratory in nature. This means that aside from equipping VF in the ensuing
scale-up by proving insights on the programs effectiveness, another objective of the
study is to (2) provide coherent goals to indicate success (or failure).
Research Statement
Taking all of these into account, the studys research questions will be as follows:
1) What does impact mean for domestic workers in adherence to the specific context they belong
to?
2) What impact has the program made in terms of the levels of evaluation by Phillips (i.e.
response, knowledge, change in behavior, results, and ROI)?
3) Based on the programs current impact and the Voices of Domestic Workers, what coherent
goal should the program work for to indicate its success (or failure)?

11

1.5 Scope and Limitations

The scope of the study will be limited to VFs Kasambahay Human
Development Program in Dumaguete City. Also, the evaluation will predominantly
focus on measuring outcomes, although other factors of the results chain such as
inputs, activities, and outputs will be put into consideration as well, since VF
requires such information for the scale-up (Gertler, et al. 2007). Time and resource
constraints will limit the frequency of data gatherings as well, considering that travel
to the area is both far in distance and quite costly. Related to time and budget
constraints is the greatest challenge in conducting the study sampling.
Considering that the study is an impact evaluation, the ideal scenario is that a
pre-test is conducted before the program begins. Conversely, a post-test must be
conducted at an appropriate time after the program ends. However, due to conflicts
with the academic calendar, this cannot be achieved with the 2016 batch of
participants. This means that the respondents to be targeted for the study will
comprise those that have already completed the program in previous years. The
tracked graduates of the program have either remained in domestic work, moved on
to higher paying jobs (within and outside Dumaguete), or returned to their homes
outside Dumaguete City. What this means is that these individuals are either busy
with work, difficult to make contact with, or even both. As such, convenience
sampling will be the method utilized, in that VF will be responsible for gathering the
respondents depending on availability and willingness to being subjected to the datagathering process. Not only does this hamper the generalizability of the data but is
more importantly a significant source of bias (more on this later). Furthermore, it is to
be expected that the respondents to be gathered graduated on the same year. Since the

12

study will require the use of recalled data, there will be limitations as to which of
the said respondents may provide conclusive information of such data.

13

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE (RRL)

2.1 Who are Domestic Workers?
There are different (although significantly similar) definitions for domestic
workers across literature. The Labor Code of the Philippines defines domestic or
household services as service in the employers home which is usually necessary or
desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof and includes ministering to the
personal comfort and convenience of the members of the employers household,
including services of family drivers (P.D. 442: Article 141, 1974). A more recent
definition is provided by the International Labor Organization (ILO) in its Convention
189 or Decent Work for Domestic Workers. Here, domestic work is defined as
work performed in or for a household or households while domestic worker means
any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship. This
excludes any individual who performs domestic work only occasionally or
sporadically and not on an occupational basis (ILO 2011).
There are limitations to the definitions above, particularly in contextualizing
the Philippine setting. As such, a more appropriate definition can be found in the
(relatively) recent Domestic Workers Act or Batas Kasambahay (R.A. 10361)
enacted on the 23rd of July, 2012. According to such, domestic worker or
kasambahay refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment
relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general househelp, nursemaid
or yaya, cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who
performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational
basis. In reference to R.A. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act), it is unlawful to employ any person
below fifteen years of age as a domestic worker. However, the act does make

14

exceptions for working children, which refers to domestic workers who are fifteen
years old and above but below eighteen years old. Evidently, Batas Kasambahay
mirrors aspects of the previous definitions for and related to domestic workers. But at
the same time, it is more comprehensive and is simply more representative of the
Philippine context.
2.2 What is an Impact Evaluation?
At the very core of development interventions is the desire to change
outcomes, such as rais[ing] incomes, to improve learning, or to reduce illness.
Whether or not these changes are actually achieved is of course, a crucial public
policy question. However, especially in the past, this was a question often left
unexamined (Gertler, et al. 2007). Fortunately, recent years have seen increased
interest inmeasur[ing] the impact of development programs. This is evident in the
work programs of leading development organizations such as Poverty Action Lab
(J-PAL) and Innovations in Poverty Action (IPA), the portfolio of studies financed
under the World Banks Development Impact Evaluation Initiative (DIME) and
Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund (SIEF), and the financing being made available by
the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), and the like (White 2009).
Before going any further, it is essential to first ask the question: what is an
impact evaluation? The term has varying definitions across literature that are largely
similar in essence. RMIT University and BetterEvaluation defines it an
investigat[ion] [of] the changes brought about by an intervention (Roger 2012). On
the other hand, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) defines impact evaluation as an assessment of how the intervention being
evaluated affects outcomes, whether these effects are intended or unintended (OECD
2001).
15

An effective means of expounding on the concept is found in a study

published by the World Bank. It begins by first defining evaluations in general.
According to the text, evaluations are periodic, objective assessments of a planned,
on-going, or completed project, program, or policy which are used to answer
specific questions related to design, implementation, and results. Such are carried
out at discrete points in time and often seek an outside perspective from technical
experts. According to the authors, design, method, and cost vary substantially
depending on the type of question the evaluation is trying to answer (Gertler, et al.
2007), for which there are three types (Imas and Rist 2009):
1) Descriptive questions The evaluation seeks to determine what is taking place and describes
processes, conditions, organizational relationships, and stakeholder views.
2) Normative questions The evaluation compares what is taking place to what should be
taking place; it assesses activities and whether or not targets are accomplished. Normative
questions can apply to inputs, activities, and outputs.
3) Cause-and-effect questions The evaluation examines outcomes and tries to assess what
difference the intervention makes in outcomes.

With these being said, an impact evaluation is a type of evaluation aimed at answering
cause-and-effect questions. These are structured around one particular type of
question, which is as follows: What is the impact (or causal effect) of a program on
an outcome of interest? As such, impact evaluation is defined by the authors as an
evaluation that looks for the changes in outcome that are directly attributable to the
program (Gertler, et al. 2007).

Clearly, such a definition mirrors the previous

meanings cited, only discussed in a clearer, more concise manner.

One of the initial steps in conducting an impact evaluation is constructing a
model for the theory of change or the description of how an intervention is supposed

16

to deliver the desired results. Gertler, et al. selected the results chain to outline the
theory of change, since they find that it is the simplest and clearest model to outline
[such] in the operational context of development programs. The results chain sets
out a logical, plausible outline of how a sequence of inputs, activities, and outputs for
which a project is directly responsible interacts with behavior to establish pathways
through which impacts are achieved. A basic results chain will map the following
(Gertler, et al. 2007):
1) Inputs Resources at the disposal of the project, including staff and budget
2) Activities Actions taken or work performed to convert inputs into outputs
3) Outputs The tangible goods and services that the project activities produce (They are
directly under the control of the implementing agency)
4) Outcomes Results likely to be achieved once the beneficiary population uses the project
outputs (They are usually achieved in the short-to-medium term)
5) Final outcomes The final project goals (They can be influenced by multiple factors and are
typically achieved over a longer period of time)

These aspects of the results chain are illustrated in Figure 2.1 below:

Source: Gertler, et.al (2007)

Figure 2.1: Elements of the results chain

Citing the results chain as is necessary simply for the purpose for establishing which
aspects of the program will be given focus. As the authors put it, a clearly articulated

17

results chain provides a useful map for selecting the indicators that will be measured
along the chain (Gertler, et al. 2007). For this study, the areas of focus will be
predominantly placed on outcomes and final outcomes, attempting to ask causeand-effect questions (as mentioned earlier). However, since VF is in need of
information regarding current problems and areas that require improvement, the
inputs, activities, and outputs will still be touched on (albeit on a much lesser
degree).
According to Gertler, et al., the next step in conducting an impact evaluation is
setting performance indicators for the intervention. There are two (2) conventional
means of setting such indicators. If monitoring and evaluation mechanisms were
established prior to interventions implementation, it is to be expected that the
proponents of the program will dictate how outcomes are to be measured. Conversely,
given the relative newness of impact evaluations (especially in the local setting), the
alternative is to review existing related literature or perhaps similar interventions
(coupled with a critical analysis of the different program aspects) to establish
measurable indicators. What is often overlooked, however, is that both options are
similarly problematic. This will be discussed further in the section, as focus will be
placed on what impact really means.
2.3 What does Impact Really Mean?
The conventional means of setting measurable indicators for a development
intervention were discussed earlier and as cited, both alternatives are similarly
problematic. To be more specific, both options exhibit an overt form of
marginalization. As mentioned earlier, the very core of development interventions is
the desire to change outcomes. These outcomes are in turn, based on the desire to
allow program participants or beneficiaries to attain well-being or to put it simpler,
18

a better life. However, several inquiries on this matter are often overlooked. What
does well-being mean or what constitutes a better life? More importantly, Whose
definition of well-being is being adhered to? More often than not, program
participants of development interventions are marginalized in a sense that the
definition of well-being is dictated by an external agent. Evident from the
distribution of power implicit within the situation (i.e. development organization vis-vis program beneficiaries), the context from which the aforementioned external
agent belongs is clearly different from that of the program participants. Considering
the difference in context (among others), one must ask: Is this approach
appropriate?
The said approach has become a paradigm in the field of development. One of
the most celebrated critiques of this model is implicitly found in Arturo Escobars
Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World and his
analysis of the discourse of development. His work heavily relies on Foucaults
work on the dynamics of discourse and power in the representation of social reality.
Escobar challenges the notion of development by proposing that its narrative is
dominated by The Wests and its paternalistic and ethnocentric discursive regime.
The First Worlds traditions of late modernity has created and represented certain
identities (e.g. poverty, etc.) through theories and interventions that are from the
outstide. This resulted to the discourse and strategy of development produc[ing] its
opposite: massive underdevelopment and impoverishment, untold exploitation and
oppression. To quote the text, Development was and continues to be for the most
part a top-down, ethnocentric and technocratic approach, which treated people and
cultures as abstract concepts, statistical figures to be moved up and down in the charts
progress (Escobar 1995).

19

How does this relate to the study at hand? Measuring impact (which in turn,
entails the definition of well-being or positive outcomes) must avoid being a mere
top-down, ethnocentric, and technocratic in nature. This of course, is a thesis in the
field of Development Studies, making it all the more important to be sensitive to the
cultural process that is development. It is therefore important to measure impact in
adherence to the local context of the Kasambahay Human Development Programs
participants. Impact must be based on their definition of well-being and not dictated
by an external agent. However, this is a difficult task to undertake. Well-being is a
very broad and general concept that is ultimately subjective in nature. The MerriamWebster dictionary defines the term as the state of being happy, healthy, or
prosperous. Clearly, this does not contribute much in operationalizing the term, as
the terms happy, healthy, [and] prosperous are highly subjective in nature as well.
In fact, one of Escobars conclusions is that there appears to be no universal or
absolute approach in social development that can be serve as a one-size-fits-all type of
solution to the diverse local cultures of different societies. Operationalizing the term
is essential, as its definition will serve as the basis in measuring impact. With all of
these being said, there is one last question left unanswered: How does one
appropriately define well-being to? This will be discussed in the following section.
2.4 How Should Impact Be Measured?
Given the highly subjective nature of the concept of well-being, it is to be
expected that defining it entails qualitative research methods. This is exhibited across
related literature, in that studies that attempt to achieve this utilize such means. The
most common approach taken is to list sets of criteria to define the concept through
extensive reviews of literature that encompass various fields of studies such as
psychology, sociology and anthropology, economics, health, and many others (Ryan,

20

R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2001; Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. 2013; Ryff, C. D. 1989;
Diener, E. 2000). Although this is a noteworthy effort in synthesizing the
multidimensionality of well-being, this still does not cater to specific local contexts
and thus, exhibits an imposition of the definition.
One of the most (if not, the most) notable works in listening to the
marginalized groups is the Voices of the Poor series conducted by the World Bank.
The institution collected the voices of more than 60,000 poor women and men from
60 countries, in an unprecedented effort to understand poverty from the perspective of
the poor themselves. Considered a participatory research initiative, the series
documents and synthesizes the chronicles the struggles and aspirations of poor
people for a life of dignity (description from the World Banks official website).
The said series contains three (3) volumes, namely (Vol. 1) Can Anyone Hear Us?;
(Vol. 2) Crying Out for Change; and (Vol. 3) From Many Lands (Narayan-Parker, D.,
& Patel, R. 2000; Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. K., & Petesch, P. 2000;
Narayan-Parker, D., & Petesch, P. L. 2002). Voices of the Poor acknowledges the
variations of poverty across and within countries and that its precise contours and
dimensions are always contingent on time, place, and social groups involved. It goes
on to say that while quantitative measures [(the text cites The Gini coefficient, the
Human Development index, and the Physical Quality of Life index as examples)]
provide important aggregate-level information, these data are able to tell only a partial
story (Narayan-Parker, D., & Patel, R. 2000).
Despite the revolutionary nature of these works, Escobar however, may have
his fair share of objections to them. To quote a portion of the first volume, the World
Banks Poverty Assessments have relied largely upon data derived from large-scale
household surveys, pertaining to those similar with the examples cited above
21

(Narayan-Parker, D., & Patel, R. 2000). Relating this to Escobars assertions, one can
argue that there are still First World ideological impositions embedded in these
measurements of poverty, which in turn has certain implications on the contents of
Voices of the Poor. To be more specific, the problem is realized when one considers
the sampling techniques utilized (which ranged from nationally representative
samples to purposive sampling based primarily on poverty, agro-ecological diversity
as well as rural and urban diversity) and where these were based off of.
However, the concern of the study is not the content of the series but the
methodology behind it. Such is found in Consultations with the Poor: Methodology
Guide for the 20 Country Study for the World Development Report 2000/01,
published by the World Bank to guide those who wish to contribute to this body of
literature (World Bank 1995). According to the text, there are four (4) main themes
for the analysis of the study. These are the following (with the corresponding
subthemes to be explored):
1.

Exploring well-being
-

How do people define well-being or a good quality of life and ill-being or a bad
quality of life? Have these changed over time?

How do people perceive security, risk, vulnerability, opportunities? Have these

changed over time?

How do households and individuals cope with decline in well-being and how do these
coping strategies in turn affect their lives?

2.

Priorities of the poor

-

Problems faced by the domestic workers and their families

Prioritization of problems, in terms of the most pressing needs of domestic workers

and their families

22

Have these problems changed over the years or have they remained the same? What
are peoples hopes and fears for the future?

3.

4.

Institutional analysis
-

Which institutions are important in peoples lives?

Which institutions support people in coping with crisis?

Gender relations
-

What are the existing gender relations within the household?

Are women empowered in todays society?

The study will makes use of the subthemes found within the thematic areas above. It
is important to note that the themes and subthemes cited above should appropriately
be altered and simplified to fit the context of the study. For one, the Voices of the
Poor methodology assumes data gathering on a community level. This the reason why
concepts such as social exclusion, social cohesion, and the like were omitted.
Furthermore, the study makes an inquiry into the well-being of domestic workers and
how the program affects it. As such, the thematic areas of priorities of the poor,
institutional analysis, and gender relations have been omitted.
Since this is an impact evaluation, it was established that the primary focus of
the study will be on outcomes or results. It has also been established that the domestic
workers definition of well-being and how the program impacts this must be the
foremost bases in terms of measuring its effectiveness. However, there are other
aspects to program effectiveness that need to be considered as well. These will be
discussed in the next section.
2.5 Phillips Five-Level ROI Framework
In the context of training programs (a category the Kasambahay Human
Development Program falls under), one of the most widely used frameworks is Dr.
Donald Kirkpatricks Levels of Evaluation. To quote the text, nearly everyone would
23

agree that a definition of evaluation would be to determine the effectiveness of a

training program. The author goes on to say that there is little meaning to this until
the question In terms of what? is answered. Kirkpatrick argues that evaluation
changes from a complicated elusive generality into clear and achievable goals if [it is
broken] down into logical steps. These steps are (1) Reaction, (2) Learning, (3)
Behavior, and (4) Results (Kirkpatrick 1959).
Although this evaluation framework has stood the test of time by still being
relevant to contemporary times, it has been repeatedly by several experts due to its
inadequacy. One of these critiques is Dr. Jack Phillips, whose criticism takes
form in his Five-Level Return on ROI Framework. The first four levels of his
framework are largely similar to his predecessor but with certain revisions. He does,
however, add a fifth level known as the Return on Investment or ROI. The said
steps are as follows: (1) Reaction, Satisfaction, and Planned Action; (2) Learning; (3)
Application and Implementation; (4) Business Impact; and (5) Return on Investment
(ROI) (Phillips 1991). An elaboration on these levels is outlined in the figure below
(Brewer 2007):
Level
Reaction, Satisfaction, and Planned
Action
Learning
Application and Implementation
Business Impact
Return on Investment

Description
Program participants satisfaction is measured along with a
written plan for implementing what they have learned; this
level varies from Kirkpatricks with the addition of an action
plan
Focuses on assessing the skills and knowledge that the
participants learned during training
Measures changes in the behavior of the participant once
back on the job
Measurement focuses on actual business results achieved
after participants are sent through training
Measurement at this level compares the monetary benefits
from the program with the fully loaded cost to conduct the
program.

Figure 2.2: Phillips Five-Level ROI Framework (levels and description)

24

In the context of training programs, it is insufficient to stop at measuring whether an

intervention changed the state of well-being of its participants. Phillips framework
not only establishes different aspects (specifically, the first three steps) of
effectiveness but conveniently provides a suitable conceptual framework for the
study.
Kirkpatrick and Phillips models were developed for business setting,
specifically for human resources-initiated internal training programs for employees.
This explains why the language of the five steps appears to be tailored for that
context. Conversely, the study is evaluating an NGO training program that does not
reap benefits from the development of its participants. As such, for the purposes of the
study, the employers of the participants (whether in or out of domestic work) will
take the perspective of the company. However, this perspective will only
supplement the very core of the study at hand, which is to measure impact based on
the changes in well-being of the respondents.

25

3. Theoretical Framework
3.1 Conceptual Framework
In the context of training programs (a category the Kasambahay Human
Development Program falls under), one of the most widely used frameworks is
Kirkpatricks (1959) Levels of Evaluation. To quote the text, nearly everyone would
agree that a definition of evaluation would be to determine the effectiveness of a
training program. The author goes on to say that there is little meaning to this until
the question In terms of what? is answered. Kirkpatricks model is composed of
four steps but is often criticized for its inadequacy. Phillips makes revisions to the
levels proposed by his predecessor and adds an additional fifth step in the process.
The said steps (as described in Figure 8) are as follows: (1) Reaction, Satisfaction,
and Planned Action; (2) Learning; (3) Application and Implementation; (4) Business
Impact; and (5) Return on Investment (ROI) (Phillips 1991). Phillips Five-Level ROI
Framework outlines (see Figure 2.2) the aspects that need to be tackled in assessing
the effectiveness of a training program, paving the way to a comprehensive evaluation
of its impact. This model will serve as the conceptual framework the guides the study.
3.2 Review of Related Literature: Summary
The studys RRL and the interplay between the theories and concepts
discussed, which developed the conceptual framework to be utilized, can be
summarized in the figure below:

26

Figure 3.1: Review of related literature (Summary)

As shown above, the results chain outlines the different aspects of a program and how
these bring about results and outcomes. The Phillips Five-Level ROI Framework
provides a framework in analyzing the said aspects, appropriate being more
comprehensive in the program outcomes (since the study is an impact evaluation).
Lastly, to avoid the imposition of development ideologies, fourth level (Business
Impact) must be founded on the data gathered using the Voice of the Poor
methodology.

27

4. Empirical Framework (Methodology)

4.1 Research Design
The impact evaluation entails a purely qualitative research design. This
necessitates the use of in-depth interviews as the data-gathering method, with the
tools containing open-ended questions and quantifiable items placed to produce
descriptive statistics. The data gathered from the aforementioned open-ended
questions will then be put under thematic analysis, which is form of analysis that
seeks to emphasize, examine, and record themes or patterns within data. Moreover,
desk research will also be utilized, in that certain information gathered from VF (from
informal interviews and private documents) will be included in the analysis, naturally
through the process of content analysis. The data-collection process will be conducted
in (2) two phases (see Figure 4.1). Phase One involves data-gathering from graduates
of the Kasambahay Human Development Program, as well as the encoding of such
data. Second, Phase Two consists of the analysis of the data gathered.
4.2 Sampling Procedures
Sampling for the study entails nonprobability sampling, specifically a mixture
of both purposive and convenience sampling. The procedure can be considered
purposive sampling because graduates of the program from previous years will be
targeted. It is important to note that the participants of batch 2015 to 2016 are set to
graduate during the first week of May (similar time to the submission and
presentation of the study), making them an unviable source of data. At the same time,
it can also be considered convenience sampling because of the challenges in gathering
the graduates. As mentioned earlier, VF has a tracker for participants that
completed the program. These individuals have either remained in domestic work,
moved on to higher paying jobs (within and outside Dumaguete), or returned to their

28

homes outside Dumaguete City. What this means is that these individuals are either
busy with work, difficult to make contact with, or even both. As such, VF will only be
able gather those that can be contacted and as well as having the time to participate in
the study.
With these being said, it is clear that there are potential sources of bias in the
sampling procedure. The fact that VF is responsible for choosing and gathering
respondents shows that a case of selection bias may have occurred, in that the sample
will no longer representative of the population intended to be analyzed. Also, since
graduates from previous years will be targeted, recall bias is a significant concern as
well. The researcher was left with no choice but to continue the study despite these
potential sources of bias, particularly due to limits in social capital and schedulerelated constraints.
4.3 Materials
Since the study required two (2) methods of data-gathering necessary a (a)
focus group discussion (FGD) and (b) in-depth interviews. Naturally, the FGD
contains an unstructured set of qualitative questions, the answer to which will lead to
subsequent probes. The in-depth interview questionnaire, on the other hand, contains
both qualitative and quantitative questions, with the latter simply being used for
descriptive purposes (as mentioned earlier). In addition to having a Demographic
Profile section, the tools questions seek to evaluate the program in terms of the
Five-Level ROI Framework and gather insights the respondents on their definition of
well-being and the problems they face (from the Voice of the Poor methodology). The
said items will either be open-ended, Yes or No questions, and Likert Scales.
Lastly, since the respondents are locals of Dumaguete City, a Bisayan speaking area,
the questionnaire has been translated accordingly (see Appendices 4 and 6).
29

4.4 Schedule
The schedule of carrying out the study is found in the simple Gantt chart found below:

April
AGENDA

May

Su

Th

Su

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Phase #1
Data-gathering
Encoding of data
Phase #2
Analysis of data (impact evaluation)

Figure 4.1: Schedule of Activities

The study entailed two (2) phases, the first (1st) for data-gathering and encoding, and
the second (2nd) for the analysis. As seen above, the data-gathering was completed
only in one (1) day (April 24, 2016). This took place on a Sunday because this is the
usual day-off for their tracked graduates. The encoding of the data gathered, on
the other hand, was done during the next two (2) days (April 25 to 26, 2016). Lastly,
the analysis of the data was completed in five (5) days (April 27, 2016 to May 1,
2016). The rushed nature of the data-gathering, encoding, and analysis was due to the
constant communications between the researcher and the correspondent from the local
VF office in Dumaguete City. However, as will be made evident in the Results and
Analysis section, the said processes proved to be fruitful and insightful nonetheless.
4.5 Data Gathering
For Phase One of the study, available graduates of the Kasambahay Human
Development Program will be requested by VF to converge at Dumaguete Royal
Suite Inn, specifically in its Conference Room, in order to conduct the datagathering. This began at 10:00 am, starting with the FGD. This lasted for

30

approximately twenty-five (25) minutes. After this, the respondents stepped out of the
room along with the researcher, one-by-one, for the purpose of conducting the indepth interviews. These lasted from a range of twenty-five (25) to forty-five (45)
minutes each. The entire data-gathering process ended at 6:00 PM.
4.6 Data Processing
As mentioned above, the FGD and interviews were recorded for the purpose
of encoding. This is especially important for the qualitative, open-ended questions,
which will then be transcribed in separate word documents. The items that will
constitute the descriptive statistics in the study will be encoded through Microsoft
Excel, hastening the task of data consolidation.

31

5. Results and Analysis

5.1 Results
A. Demographic profile
As mentioned earlier, there were seven (7) respondents for the in-depth
interviews. This was consisted of 3 males and 4 females with an average age of 22.71.
Most of them were Single, with only 2 being Married. 4 out of the 7 are currently
unemployed, either because they recently graduated college or that their employment
contract newly expired. 2 of the remaining 3 worked in the food industry, particularly
in an Online Baking Firm (where one can order cakes through a website and is
delivered to their doorstep the respondent is responsible for preparing the cakes) and
Jollibee (as part of the service crew). The remaining respondent is self-employed,
specifically in selling Ready-To-Wear (RTW) clothing.
The average number of dependents for those that are currently employed (3) is
1.67 and if those with past occupations are included (and their dependents during the
time they were employed, the average goes down to 1.4. Naturally, all respondents
had previous experience in domestic work, with an average length of experience of
2.42 years (or 2 years and 5 months), spread over an average of 1.28 employees
(only 2 respondents had an experience of more than 1 employer). The problem
regarding the recall process is highlighted when the Year of Graduation from the
Kasambahay Human Development Program of respondents is considered. 2 come
from the class of 2010, 3 from 2011, 1 from 2013, and lastly, 1 from 2015. These are
summarized in the figure below:

32

Figure 5.1 Summary of Demographic Profile (Respondents in-depth interviews)

B. Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

The FGD had nine (9) participants, facilitated by the researcher himself. Seven
(7) of the said participants were the same as those that subjected themselves to the indepth interviews (the details of which will be discussed later), while the two (2) others
(who did not participant in the aforementioned interviews) are two VF staff members
who were domestic workers themselves and were part of the first batch of graduates
(2010). Naturally, these individuals were not included in the in-depth interviews
because their responses would likely be hindered by a conflict of interest. As
mentioned in the RRL, the study makes an inquiry to the domestic workers definition
of well-being. Aside from the said definition, shocks that affected the respondents
and their families, as well as their insights on upward mobility were covered as
well.

33

B.1 Definition of well-being

When asked to define the concept of well-being (or the good life) using the
closest translation to the Bisaya dialect, the respondents had a difficult time
formulating their answers. The researcher then proceeded to using probing them, in
that they were asked to provide criteria that is necessary for one to consider life
good. The following themes and subthemes arose:
1) Basic needs
-

Eating three (3) meals per day

Possess means of communication (i.e. mobile phone, wifi, etc.)

Have shelter that can withstand natural disasters

2) Proper education
-

Formal education as the first option

Informal education as the second option (e.g. VF training program; Alternative

Learning System by DepEd)

3) Access to services
-

Government, NGOs, and others (NOTE: banks were cited)

4) Good employment
-

Adequate income (to fulfill basic needs)

Knowledge and skills compatible with job (to have fulfilling experience)

Healthy employee-employer relationship

Given benefits (i.e. SSS, Pag-ibig, PhilHealth)
No form of abuse (whether verbal, physical, or sexual) present

5) Good family life

-

Complete: no separation unless needed for work

Ensures proper upbringing of children

6) Provide children with the good life (with same criteria above)

34

Based on the results of the FGD, it appears that the respondents definition of
well-being is rooted on the following: (1) financial stability, an (2) adequate
educational background, and (3) obtaining decent employment. It is important to
note that these roots are strongly related to each other as well. Financial stability
one of their criteria to constitute a good life, evident in the fact that the first
indicator cited was the possession of basic needs. What furthers this assertion is that
the basic needs they mentioned are all material in nature, necessitating monetary
means to purchase them. To be more specific, they cited eating three (3) meals a day,
possessing means of communication such as mobile phones and WIFI, and to reside
in shelters that can withstand natural disasters.
Moreover, they recognize that education is key in attaining well-being. They
explained that although formal education is the first priority (which once again,
usually necessitates monetary means), they acknowledged that there are other
mediums for education such as the Alterative Learning System (ALS) by the
Department of Education and VFs Kasambahay Human Development Program. This
is related to another criterion to constitute well-being cited by the respondents
access to services. It appears that these individuals recognize that in scenarios wherein
they do not have financial stability (which in turn, compromises their ability to attain
basic needs, means of communication, durable shelter, and formal education), it is
pivotal for them to have access to services from government, NGOs, and other
institutions such as banks. The respondents recognize that these institutions have the
capacity to serve as safety nets when they are in a state of ill-being, just as VF has
trained them through the Kasambahay Human Development Program and financially
supported their further studies (more on these later).

35

They also recognize that in having an adequate educational background and

obtaining decent employment are strongly related, in that the former is necessary to
achieve the latter. The respondents defined good employment as one that not only
yields sufficient income, but one that also comes with a health employee-employer
relationship (in that they are given benefits and no form abuse is practice) and is
fulfilling in nature (compatible with knowledge and skill set). Citing adequate
income as an indicator for good employment highlights the fact that respondents
perceive both criteria to be strongly related as well.
The respondents put an emphasis on having a good family life as an criterion
for well-being as well, which is not a surprise given the close-knot family culture of
Filipinos. They defined good in this sense such that it cannot be broken or have
family members separated (unless for the purpose of work), since they recognize that
this compromises the upbringing of children. The respondents were aware of the
increased likelihood of children to go into delinquency if they come from broken
family backgrounds. In relation, the respondents (at least those with children) cited
that they want to provide for their children with all the listed criteria, which once
again highlights the importance of financial stability.
B.2 Faced shocks
Unlike the question regarding well-being, the respondents had a much easier
time answering the inquiry on shocks. It was interesting to see that said respondents
gave answers that were closely related to their definition of well-being. The following
themes and subthemes for the subject matter arose:
1) Loss of financial capacity
-

Loss of or difficulty finding work

Brings about lack of basic needs and education

36

2) Occurrence of natural disasters

-

Broken/damaged homes

Broken/damaged assets (i.e. appliances; livestock)

3) Crime and community conflicts

-

Murders and theft from drug addicts and the insurgency (i.e. New Peoples Army)
(especially in areas outside Dumaguete)

Children are recruited by the insurgency

4) Occurrence of a broken family

-

Comprises proper upbringing of children

The assertions made in the discussion of respondents definition of well-being are

supported further by the shocks respondents and their families face. The very first
example cited by the respondents is the loss of financial capacity, which is typically
brought about by the loss of employment or the difficulty in attaining such (which
takes time according to them). They mentioned that this brings about the difficulty
in attaining basic needs, as well as adequate education for them and their children.
They also recognized the occurrence of broken families as a shock, once again
because this compromises the upbringing of children. Once respondent mentioned
that this can also be related to the loss of financial capacity, since he experienced
having their family left by their father and breadwinner.
The respondents also recognized that crime and community conflicts are shocks
as well, particularly because of the misdoings of what they termed as the insurgency
(referring to the New Peoples Army). The NPA, according to them, commits murders
and theft among certain households, in addition to recruiting their children to join
them. With this, the respondents acknowledged the value of moving into or working
in the City of Dumaguete, since such activities do not take place there. Lastly, the
respondents recognized the occurrence of natural disasters as a shock, since this
37

brings about breakage or damage to their homes and assets (which include appliances
and livestock). A few of the respondents had unpleasant experiences with the 2012
Visayas earthquake, which explains the common response among them. This, once
again, highlights the importance of basic needs (in the form of durable shelter) as an
indicator for well-being.
B.3 Insights on upward mobility
The respondents all believed that it is indeed possible for one to move up in
society both economically and socially. They were asked to (once again) list criteria
as to how one can do so. The following themes and subthemes arose:
1) Courage and confidence
-

Poverty can make one afraid to try to succeed in life

2) Competence
-

Obtained from adequate education (whether formal or informal)

Contributes to courage and confidence

3) Opportunities
-

The right opportunities need to present themselves (recognized luck as a factor)

4) Hardwork
-

Even with courage, confidence, competence, and the right opportunities present, one
must still work hard to reach dreams

5) Always hope
-

It is important to never lose hope, regardless of the circumstances

In discussing how it is possible to move up in society, the respondents listed

things that are needed to do so, and interestingly, the very first mentioned was for
one to possess courage and confidence. The respondents shared that it is quite
common for people in their socio-economic status to be afraid to try to succeed in

38

life. They went to explain that one attains courage and confidence from achieving
competence, which once again highlights the premium these individuals put on having
an adequate educational background.
The respondents went on to cite having opportunities present as a need for upward
mobility. This can manifest in opportunities for decent employment or to gain access
to affordable or free education (such VFs training program). They acknowledged
luck as a factor in this regard as well. However, the proceeded by saying that luck
is not present for everybody, and it is important to practice hardwork in everything
that they do. They claimed that even with courage, confidence, competence, and the
right opportunities present, one cannot go anywhere without having the value of
hardwork. Lastly, it was encouraging to hear that the respondents cited to always
hope as a need for upward mobility. They explained that no matter how dire situations
might be, it is important to have a hopeful attitude for one to succeed in life. One
respondent went as far as saying that his lifes motto is I can do this (kaya nako
ni), something she tells herself in all endeavors.
C. In-depth Interviews
C.1 Participation in the Kasambahay Human Development Program
In accordance to the programs activities, the figure below outlines how many
of the respondents participated in each of them. This will serve as the basis for
answers to sections B.5 and B.6.

39

Figure 5.2: Respondents and Module/Activity Participation

6 respondents claimed that they joined the program under their own initiative,
of course, with the permission of their respective employers. Only one stated that her
employer enrolled her under the program himself, since he was the Program Head
at that time. The respondents gave different reasons as to why they joined the
program. The domestic worker enrolled by her employer said that the reason behind
him doing so was that he simply wanted a better life for her. Some of the remaining
respondents said that they joined for the purposes of adding new knowledge and
skills, particularly because of the inadequacy of their educational backgrounds (the
lack brought about the lack of resources) and perhaps, in preparation of future formal
studies (e.g. college). In relation to this, one respondent in particular stated that she
heard VF can help one further his or her studies, whether in supporting a domestic
worker through college or the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA).
One respondent said that because she knew that VF was associated with (in
fact, the organization created) SUMAPI (The Samahan at Ugnayan ng
Manggagawang Pantahanan sa Pilipinas), the only labor union for domestic workers
in the Philippines, it could protect her from potential abuses by employers, which is a
common sentiment from her constituents. Another respondent stated that hearing

40

about the program made it very encouraging to learn, as opposed to just being idle,
which was especially important for him since he lived in a dangerous
neighborhood. Lastly, one respondent simply joined because she found out that VF
gave free school supplies not only to the participants of the Kasambahay Human
Development Program, but were also willing provide for their family members who
were studying at that time.
With regards to the conditions of their participation, the average distance from
workplace to SPUD (once again, the training site) was 10.58 KM. 6 of the
respondents who commuted to the training site spent an average of 32.36 PhP in
transportation costs. Only 1 of them stated that the employer shouldered such
expenses. It is interesting to note that the same respondent continued to accept VFs
refunds for the expense, despite not shouldering it himself. It is also worth mentioning
that VF refunded for participants only during the early years of the program (more on
this later).
C.2 Post-employment (after graduation)
As mentioned, all respondents are no longer employed in domestic work. Most
of them (5) left the said employers while participating in the program. However, the
remaining 2 who stayed after graduation stayed an average of 2.125 years (or 2 years
and 2 months), with one staying for 4 years and the other for only 3 months. 2 of the
respondents left due to having to begin their collegiate studies (which their employers
were willing to finance), while the rest were subjected to some form of abuse. 2 felt
that their wages in domestic work were too low to support themselves and their
dependents, with one leaving particularly because an opportunity to transfer to a
higher paying job presented itself. One left because his employer was excessively
strict and felt as though she was beginning to find reasons to scold him, to the extent
41

of practicing verbal abuse. Another respondent voiced out the she was given too much
work for her to handle, in that she no longer had time to rest. Lastly, one respondent
left because the employers child blamed him for stealing (an act he did not commit),
which made him completely lose interest in working for the family.
C.3 Reaction, Satisfaction, and Planned Action
The respondents were asked to evaluate different aspects of the program,
particularly the (1) activities/modules, (2) performance of facilitators/educators, and
the (3) facilities set by the organizers. This was done through Likert Scales and the
results were translated to present a numerical value (Very Dissatisfied 1; Somewhat
Dissatisfied 2; Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 3; Somewhat Satisfied 4; and
Very Satisfied 5).
The activities/modules yielded an average score of 4.57. The topics were said
to be enjoyable and very much applicable not only to their current or past
professions, but also with regards to their lives at school and home. However, there
were conflicting views on the comprehensiveness of the said modules. Some
perceived them to be very informative, while others found them to be otherwise, in
that not much was covered. One respondent claimed that he expected the STEP-UP
training to cover coding, but they were only taught how to operated Microsoft (MS)
Office. Another respondent said that the topics covered were quite far from what he
expected. He did, however, acknowledge that it was all very helpful and that he was
happy with the new learnings. Interestingly, one lone respondent said that she had
no interest whatsoever in any of the activities (although despite this, she was still
Somewhat Satisfied with the modules).

42

Similarly, the performance of facilitators/educators was highly scored (4.86).

They were identified as either teachers or student volunteers of SPUD and the
respondents reviewed them positively. They were said to have taught them very well,
in that their teaching methods were every effective. To be more specific, they taught
them in a step-by-step, easily understandable manners, that was no purely lecturebased but put more emphasis on application.
Lastly, the facilities set by the organizers were positively perceived as well,
yielding a score of 4.57. All of respondents were very happy with these, in that had
full access to SPUDs laboratories and equipment. One respondent went as far as
saying that they felt like Paulinians on these Sunday sessions. However, some of
them recognized that there were some instances that these facilities proved to be
inadequate.
C.4 Learning (increase in knowledge)
Once again through using Likert Scales (Learned Nothing New 1; Learned a
Bit of New Information 2; and Learned a Significant Amount of New Information
3), the respondents were asked to assess how much they learned (new information)
from the programs activities. These are summarized in the figure below:

c
Figure 5.3 Scores for Increase in Knowledge (Activities/Modules)

43

Evidently, all activities were scored highly. However, one respondent scored
the Fruit Carving module with a 1 (the only score of 1 among all responses), and
she noted that the participants were simply spectating as the instructor demonstrated
how to carve fruits (a sentiment shared by other respondents as well).
C.5 Application and Implementation (change in behavior)
In assessing how often respondents applied or implemented their new found
knowledge and skills from the programs activities, Likert Scales (Never Apply 1;
Apply Sometimes 2; and Apply Often 3) were used once more. The results are
outlined in the figure below. After responding with their scores, they proceeded to
giving their individuals rationales behind the said ratings.

Figure 5.4 Scores for Frequency of Application (Activities/Modules)

Agri-training only scored a 2.0 primarily because they only applied the new
lessons and skills in this regard when they needed to plant at home, which is not an
every day thing (as one respondent put it). It is worth noting that one respondent
said that she never applied her learnings since planting or gardening is something she
never practices. Another respondent claims that upon participating in the activity, she
wanted to try out her new found knowledge and landscaping actually became a
hobby of hers. Yielding a similar score (2.0), ECO-SWARM Literacy proved to be

44

useful for 2 respondents, particularly in proper waste disposal at home, while the
other 2 felt as though they simply had no use for it.
Hygiene and Sanitation in the Kitchen was highly scored (2.86) because all of
them use their kitchen in their respective homes. This was especially helpful for those
who have experience working in Jollibee, who were frequently tasked to clean up the
work station. Similarly, Simple Cookery yielded a high score as well (2.50). One
responded even noted that it gave him a head start in his collegiate studies (since he
is currently taking up Hotel Management).
It was interesting to see that Inter-Personal Relationship and Personality
Development both yielded the maximum scores (3.0). All of them recognized that the
former improved how they conducted themselves during everyday interactions with
different people. The latter, on the other hand, made them feel as if they became
better people. One respondent even noted that she was able to pass on the new
knowledge to her children, specifically in teaching them proper manners. Basic
Household Tips and First-Aid scored 2.4 because they claimed that this proved to be
useful in their lives at home, but was pulled down by the First-Aid component
because the occurrences wounds do not happen very often.
The Microsoft Unlimited Potential (STEP-UP) Computer Literacy proved to
be very useful for most of the respondents, yielding a score of 2.67. Some of them
were able to use it for their current or past professions (i.e. work at ice plant; cashier
at Jollibee), for the job application process, for school (i.e. research purposes), and
even just to go online on Facebook and Youtube. One hindrance to the score,
however, was their access to computers, with some of them being limited to internet
cafes.

45

Fruit Carving and Business and other Livelihood Skills yielded the lowest
scores (1.33 and 1.67 respectively), since respondents simply had hardly used (except
for occasional family functions) for the former and the latter, particularly because
they had neither had a business to run or money to save (pertaining to the Financial
Literacy component of the module). Lastly, Basic Education/Story-telling yielded a
score of 2.5 and there are interesting points to consider. One respondent uses this
frequently, particularly in Youth for Christ (YFC) sharing sessions and the other
uses her new found knowledge occasionally, specifically in telling stores to less
privileged children when volunteering at a local church.
C.6 Impact (results)
As mentioned in the RRL, impact will be evaluated from the perspective of
domestic workers, the employer(s) who allowed them to participate in the program,
and their current employers (whether in domestic work or not). Because it was
expected beforehand that some domestic workers either left their employment in
domestic work while participating in the program or perhaps immediately after
graduating, impact was also evaluated based on two (2) time frames one during the
duration of their participation and the other after graduation.
When asked whether they began to see improvements in their performance as
domestic workers while participating in the program, majority of respondents (5)
answers Yes. This typically manifested in improvements with cleaning and cooking
(i.e. new dishes learned to the extent that employers asked to be taught how to
prepare them), while one respondent cited his improvements in landscaping (i.e. mixand-matching plants in the garden).

46

Only 2 respondents stayed in domestic work after graduating (but eventually

left), and both answered Yes, citing further improvements from the answers to the
question regarding their performance while participating in the program (i.e. waste
disposal). Majority of respondents (4) also claimed that they feel as though their
employers benefitted from their participation in the program. Aside from their
improvements in cooking, cleaning, gardening, and waste disposal (and how these
made their lives more comfortable), they cited further examples. One respondent
stated that he actually repeatedly helped his employers child with her computer
homework and another said that his employer sold what he planted in the garden.
As mentioned, only 2 of the respondents are currently employed. Both had
conflicting answers when asked whether graduating from the program led to benefits
enjoyed by their current employers. One answered Yes, in that certain learnings
from VFs activities were directly applicable to his work in Jollibee. On the other
hand, the other claimed that the module contents have nothing to do with her current
tasks. If the currently unemployed graduates who have had previous work experience
(3 respondents) are included, they also shared similar sentiments with the former, in
that their new found knowledge from VF aided them in the tasks they had to perform
for their previous occupations.
Thus far, the discussion on impact has been loosely based on Phillips FiveLevel Framework. The heart of the study, however, is on the Kasambahay Human
Development Programs impact based on the respondents own definition of wellbeing. Similar to how the FGD was structured, the domestic workers were asked
questions regarding the programs implications on their state of well-being, how it
affected the shocks they face with their respective families, and its effect on their
upward mobility.
47

Regarding how the program affected their stated of well-being, majority of

respondents (6) answered that it yielded positive effects in this regard. Their
responses reflect which direct outcomes of the Kasambahay Human Development
Program are perceived by them to have improved their state of well-being. The
following themes and subthemes arose:
1) New found skills and knowledge
-

Can never be taken away

Elicits confidence in trying to succeed

Makes them more valuable as workers

2) Program as avenue for VF to aid in funding education

-

VF has been to known to finance the further education (whether formal or informal)
of its graduates

3) Improvement in relationships
-

Due to better social skills and becoming a better person

4) Improvement in certain aspects of life at home

-

Improved cooking skills (i.e. can cook tastier and a wider variety of dishes for family)

Better hygiene and clean household leads to good health

When asked whether graduating from the program has lessened the adverse
effects that arise from the shocks they face with their families, 4 respondents
answered Yes, specifically because they are now able to cope better with such. Two
common reasons cited were (1) increases in wage (for those who are still employed or
recently finished their contracts) and (2) gained confidence to succeed in life (which
motivates them to solve their own problems). However, most of them shared that
despite this, certain problems still persist (kulang pa).
With regards to their insights on upward mobility, majority (5) of respondents
believe that they have been put in a better position to move up in society both
48

economically and socially because of graduating from the program. They primarily
attributed this to their new found knowledge and skills, in that these can be applied to
higher paying jobs (i.e. hotels, restaurants, etc.), as well as being more educated in
starting a business. One respondent went as far as saying that having new learnings in
itself is a form of moving up. This was complemented by a different respondent,
stating that they now have an edge over other domestic workers who did not
undergo the same training program.
It also seemed appropriate to ask domestic workers whether they are happy
with their current professions. This is because one of the Kasambahay Human
Development Programs goals is to give domestic workers a choice between staying
in domestic work or finding a different occupation, a route majority of graduates have
opted to take (see Appendix 2). Of the 3 respondents who are either employed or selfemployed, only 1 is happy about his current profession (Jollibee). On the other hand,
1 is indifferent while the other is simply unhappy, particularly because of the low
earnings brought about by her occupation (selling RTW Clothing). It is important to
note that those who have had past working experience outside domestic work claimed
that they were very much happy in their previous professions.
Lastly, with regards to their hopes and fears for the future, the following
themes and subthemes arose:
Hopes
1) Landing a good job
-

Good in terms of yielding adequate income for basic needs, as well as to be

happy and find fulfilment in profession

2) Complete formal education (i.e. college)

49

Pertaining to themselves

Pertaining to their child(ren)

3) Family stays together

-

Away from sickness and death

Avoidance of internal conflicts and separation

More time together

4) Being self-employed (having own business)

-

Likelier to earn more with a business than being employed

Makes ones life more comfortable (more time spent with family)

Fears
1) Unemployment
2) Landing a low-income job
3) Separation from family (whether due to death or internal conflict)
4) The unknown (uncertainty)
5) Death
-

Pertaining to self (nobody will be left to take care of loved ones)

Pertaining to family member(s)

6) Natural calamities
-

Cannot be controlled and difficult to foresee

Brings about destruction of propert(ies) and loss of lives

C.7 Return on Investment (ROI)

The Return on Investment (ROI), though closely related to Impact, will be
examined solely on the perspective of the programs participants (unlike section B.7).
The simple reasoning behind this is that it is difficult to quantify monetary gains from
the perspective of the domestic workers employers.

50

The previous wages of the respondents while they participated in the program
averaged 1,625 PhP per month. This of course, excludes 3 respondents who were in
domestic work primarily for educational support and were given no salary (aside from
an allowance and perhaps a budget for books and school supplies). However, with
regards to the current salaries of their those currently employed or self-employed,
their average wage increased to 3,733.33 PhP, yielding a total wage increase of
2,108.33 PhP from their time of participation. However, if those recently unemployed
due to ends of employment contracts are included, their average wages for postemployment (after graduation) is further increased to 5,440 PhP, bringing up the total
wage increase to 3,815 PhP. It is worth noting that none of the respondents who left
domestic work (whether during or after participating in the program) returned to the
same profession, and none of them experienced wage increases during the time of
their participation.
D. Other findings
D.1 Recruitment Channels
Other findings arose while the researcher interacted with the respondents
beyond the data-gathering methods. First, it appears that VF has three (3) channels for
recruiting participants for the Kasambahay Human Development Program. The most
frequently used (and said to be effective) channel is through different high schools
in Negros Oriental. VF officials approach the said schools and attempt to recruit
working students currently employed as domestic workers. It is important to note
that this serves as a significant source of bias, in that domestic workers that
simultaneously pursue studies are likely to be different from those who do not in
terms of motivation, sense of agency, and the like. Simply put, these individuals
already have the intrinsic desire to get out of domestic work and partake in other

51

occupations (specifically through the pursuit of education). This is contrasting to the

sector of domestic workers who cannot (or choose not to) escape the structures that
oppress them.
Furthermore, in Dumaguete City, there appears to be a particular domestic
worker culture, wherein they meet up in certain locations (i.e. Dumaguete Boulevard
or Quezon Park) to simply spend time together. They either meet up with their fellow
domestic workers who come from the same provinces as they do, or perhaps domestic
workers from houses near that of their employers (the researcher is uncertain whether
this takes place in other areas of the Philippines). Because of this, another channel VF
uses is that the organizations officials scout these areas and start approaching
individuals who they deem to fit the domestic worker profile. They begin by asking
them if they are domestic workers or have experience in domestic help. If the answer
is Yes, then they are immediately invited to join the Kasambahay Human
Development Programs activities.
Lastly, the last channel VF as explored is that its current pool of participants,
as well as the members of SUMAPI, are encouraged to invite their fellow domestic
workers to join the program (i.e. word-of-mouth). However, it was acknowledged that
this channel proved to be the most ineffective, since the recruits it garnered were
typically reluctant or would only attend a few sessions. It is interesting to note that
in order to join the program, one does not necessarily have to be a domestic worker
but can simply have previous experience in domestic work (similar to the experience
of one respondent).

52

D.2 Attending activities

An interesting finding is that even after a domestic worker graduates from the
program, he or she still has the option to continue attending its activities. This was
exemplified by one of the respondents.
D.3 SUMAPI as a support system
Since the data-gathering procedure entailed for the participants to stay in one
room and dine together as they awaited their turns for the in-depth interviews, it was
apparent that they have grown very fond of each other. This is primarily due to their
membership in SUMAPI, which has become more a support system than a family.
Even for those who are not very active in the organization, some of them were
classmates during their participation, which established a bond between them as
well.
D.4 Financial Meltdown
VF has experienced allegations on fraud and perjury in the past, which
compromised the NGOs funding sources. According to staff member of VF, the
organization nearly closed down in 2011. However, the only identified effect this
has had on the Kasambahay Human Development Program is that they stopped
refunding transportations costs (typically shouldered by the participants in attending
the activities) after the first few years. After participants graduate, VF has had
experience sponsoring certain graduates for further studies, whether formal (i.e.
college) or vocational (i.e. TESDA). However, after the financial meltdown, this
simply became impossible for VF to continue doing.

53

D.5 Favoritism
One respondent noted that VF officials practice favoritism at times. In
refunding transportation costs during the first few years of the program, not all
participants were refunded but only a few of them (the criteria for choosing these
individuals, according to her, was not made known). Similarly, in choosing the
programs graduates that were to be sponsored to continue their studies (as mentioned
above), the same respondent perceived this to be chosen solely on favoritism as well.
5.2 Analysis
A. Phillips Five-Level Framework
A.1 Participation in the Kasambahay Human Development Program
As mentioned earlier, 6 respondents claimed that they joined the program
under their own initiative, with the common rationale being the opportunity to add to
their base of knowledge and skills. One respondent even joined because she heard that
VF has the capacity to sponsor ones further studies. Furthermore, 5 of these
respondents were working students at the time of their participation (recruited through
VFs primary channel). Because of this, their employers appeared to have no problem
with making them join the program, since it is apparent that they themselves already
have an intrinsic desire to have their domestic workers educated. All of this reflects
the aforementioned premium the respondents put on attaining an adequate educational
background, to the extent that they were willing to commute an average distance of
10.58 KM (the farthest was 30 KM), costing them an average of 32.26 PhP (highest
cost was 50 PhP). This may not seem like much, but the respondents did express that
it did take a toll on their savings, especially because they typically shouldered the
expense themselves.

54

A.2 Reaction, Satisfaction, and Planned Action

The Kasambahay Human Development Programs activities/modules,
performance of facilitators/educators, and facilities set by the organizers all scored
highly in terms of the respondents satisfaction (4.57, 4.86, and 4.57 respectively). For
the programs activities, a common response was that they appreciated how relevant
their new found knowledge and skills are not only to their past and current profession,
but also to their lives outside work (i.e. home and other social settings). There was no
negative remark regarding the performance of facilitators, with all respondents
acknowledging their effective teaching methods. However, there were still concerns
expressed by the a few participants. They identified issues regarding the
comprehensiveness and adequacy of the modules, how interesting these were, and
how relevant these activities were to what they really wanted to learn. The same goes
for the facilities provided for them. Even if majority of respondents acknowledged the
adequacy of the said facilities, some claimed that there were still instances of
inadequacy. Once again, a common example was the Fruit Carving module,
wherein they simply spectated as the instructor taught them how to carve fruits.
Despite these issues, the majority of respondents still developed action plans while
participating in the program.
A.3 Learning (increase in knowledge)
As shown in Figure 5.3, all scores for the Kasambahay Human Development
Programs activities/modules scored highly. This reflects that the participants learned
a significant amount of new content, collectively yielding an average score (weighted
according to the number of respondents who participated) of 2.66. Because of the
previous concern regarding the Fruit Carving module, it is not surprising that the

55

activity yielded the lowest score as well (2.1). Moreover, the Business and other
Livelihood Skills module yielded the second lowest score (2.33).
A.4 Application and Implementation (change in behavior)
Unlike the scores yielded in evaluating Learning, Application and
Implementation had less consistent results. Hygiene and Sanitation in the Kitchen,
Simple Cookery, Microsoft Unlimited Potential (STEP-UP) Computer Literacy, and
Basic Household Tips and First-Aid were highly scored as well, yielding ratings of
2.86, 2.50, 2.67, and 2.4 respectively. Respondents cited that these proved to be useful
in their past and current occupations, the job application process, and for their lives at
home (since majority of them frequently use their kitchens). Even during their time as
domestic workers, their employers noticed and benefitted from the improvements in
them these modules brought about (more on this later).
On the other hand, Agri-training, ECO-SWARM Lteracy, Fruit Carving, and
Business and other Livelihood Skills scored the lowest, yielding ratings of 2.0, 2.0,
1.33, and 1.67 respectively. The common rationales given for these scores (as
mentioned) was that they simply had little use for these, in that their lives only
necessitated application occasionally (or never at all). Even if a few respondents did
recognize benefits such as proper waste disposal leading to better hygiene and having
landscaping as a hobby, generally speaking, they did not see much applicability of
these modules to their lives at work and at home.
It was also interesting to see that Inter-Personal Relationship and Personality
Development both yielded perfect scores of 3.0, despite being among the lowest in
terms of days allocated for training (2 days or 6.06% apiece).

56

Figure 5.5: Percentage of Days Allocated for Modules/Activities

Respondents recognized (as mentioned) that these proved to be very useful in

everyday interactions while in social settings, as well how it made them better
people. Moreover, Basic Education/Story Telling Seminar yielded a score of 2.5.
This came as a surprise, since on the surface, it is quite difficult to imagine why
respondents would frequently implement such learnings. However, the researcher
found that the common answer was that they applied the new found knowledge in
bonding with their younger relatives (furthering the assertion that domestic workers
valued having a good family life). Some respondents were able to apply it in
obligations outside their occupations as well, specifically in sharing sessions with
YFC and telling stories to underprivileged children for a local church charity. It is
worth noting that despite having to face shocks of their own, the latter example
highlights how it is possible for these domestic workers to still have a sense of
altruism within them.
A.5 Impact (results)
According to the studys results, the Kasambahay Human Development
Program brought about positive impacts in terms of the performance of participants as
domestic workers, as well as the benefits reaped by their employers during and after

57

their participation. This manifested in improvements in cleaning and cooking,

gardening, and improved waste disposal. There were unexpected findings in this
regard as well, exemplified by the computer literacy module and how it proved to be
useful for a particular respondent in helping his employers child in her computerrelated homework. Similarly, the 2 respondents who stayed in domestic work after
graduation cited further improvements in their performance as the program
progressed. Because of these, the respondents acknowledged as well that their
employers benefitted from their improvements. It is worth noting, however, that
despite scoring highly in terms of increased learning and frequent application, benefits
that arose from the Inter-Personal Relationship and Personality Development
modules were not related to their lives in domestic work whatsoever.
With regards to their employment beyond domestic work, however, the
respondents yielded conflicting answers. One respondent claimed that certain
learnings from VFs activities were directly applicable to his work in Jollibee, while
the other who works for an Online Baking Firm claims that the module contents of
the Kasambahay Human Development Program have nothing to do with her current
occupation. However, once again, those who have had previous work experience
shared similar sentiments to the former. Similarly, their employers outside were said
to have benefitted from their participation in the program, since they did not have to
be trained to perform certain tasks. It is important to note, however, that these pertain
to jobs that either require the use of a computer (i.e. staff at ice plant) or those that
belong in the food-service industry (i.e. Jollibee). Altogether, these indicate that VFs
program has yielded positive impacts on the performance of its participants within
and outside domestic work, as well as bringing about benefits enjoyed by their
employers in both instances (albeit in limited nature).

58

A.6 Return on Investment (ROI)

As discussed in section B.1, participation in the program not only entails a
monetary investment (spending an average of 32.86 PhP in commutes) but in terms of
time as well, entailing thirty-five (35) sessions (if the Introductory Orientation and
Culmination Activity, allocated with one day each, are included see Figure 5.5)
and average travel distance of 10.59 KM. As mentioned in the studys results,
graduating from the Kasambahay Human Development Program brought led to ROIs
in this regard, as well as profits (yielding an average wage increase of 3,815 PhP if
wages of respondents with past professions are considered).
Even if transportation expenses are considered, participating in the program
will still garner profits. Assuming that the average length of experience in domestic
work (2.45 years) is matched over the tenure in their new occupations and that an
80% participation rate is needed to graduate, the participants (including those who
have recently had their employment contracts ended) yielded average profits of
109,714.92 PhP (over 29 months). The computation of such is outlined in the figure
below:

Figure 5.6: Computation of Average Profits

59

Of course, this does not include changes transportation expenses for their new
occupations or the other costs necessary for employment (i.e. getting government IDs,
etc.), but does give an idea as to how much graduates of the program gain. It is
important to note that there is another form of profit that was not measured.
Respondents who were financially aided by VF to pursue further studies (whether
college or TESDA) surely saved a significant amount on tuition-related expenses.
B. Impact According to Domestic Workers Voices
As mentioned earlier, the heart of the study is to conduct an impact evaluation
based on the respondents definition of well-being.

Majority (6) of respondents

answered Yes if participating in the program yielded positive effects to their state of
well-being (according to their definition). Because of the premium the respondents
put on attained an adequate educational background, they cited their new found skills
and knowledge as an improvement in well-being. They went on to say that this can
never be taken away from them and that it elicits confidence in trying to succeed
(echoing their citing of confidence and courage as examples of what is needed for
upward mobility). In relation, some respondents also cited the program being an
avenue for educational funding, which the same participants experienced
themselves (with VF financially supporting their further studies).
Furthermore, they cited improvement in relationships as well, particularly
due to the better social skills and becoming a better person (attributable to the
Inter-Personal Relationship and Personality Development modules). This does not
only pertain to their familial ties but also to relationships in other social circles (i.e.
friends in school, SUMAPI, work, etc.). This echoes the emphasis the respondents put
on having a good family life during the FGD, but also highlights that they also
consider having healthy relationships in general as a criterion for well-being.
60

Similarly, the participants cited improvement in certain aspects of life at home.

They mentioned specific examples such as improved cooking skills and the increased
likelihood of being healthy brought about by improvements in hygiene and having a
cleaner household. Once again, this echoes the premium they put on having a family
life, with the addition of giving their children a good life,
Although it was not explicitly mentioned by the respondents, the premium
respondents but on increased access to services is being catered to by the program as
well. VFs training program in itself is an example of a safety net for domestic
workers, but it has also had experience in supporting SUMAPI members for further
studies at TESDA (exemplified by one of the respondents). Furthermore, since
participation in the program automatically makes one a member of SUMAPI (learned
from a VF official), if certain domestic worker abuses take place, they have the option
to seek for protection and representation from the labor union. However, it is worth
noting that perhaps there are other services that the respondents are in dire need of as
well, such as those that pertain to financial support, healthcare, and the like.
Majority of the respondents with past or current experience in occupations
outside domestic work (after graduating from the Kasambahay Human Development
Program) claimed that the certain learnings from the program have been directly
applicable to the said professions. As such, this caters to the emphasis the respondents
put on attaining good employment, with the respondents mentioning that the
aforementioned new learnings have made them more valuable as workers.
However, although the program did touch on most criteria for their definition
of well-being, a few respondents did mention that these only brought about minimal
improvements. One respondent went as far as saying that she could still have achieved
what she has currently even without graduating from the program. Another
61

respondent noted that the improvements he felt only pertain to life at home and did
not recognize the significance in relation to his profession.
As mentioned earlier, when these individuals were asked whether graduating
from the program has lessened the adverse effects that arise from the shocks they face
with their families, 4 respondents answered Yes, specifically because they are now
able to cope better with such. Two common reasons cited were (1) increases in wage
(for those who are still employed or recently finished their contracts) and (2) gained
confidence to succeed in life (which motivates them to solve their own problems).
The former caters to the loss of financial capacity (i.e. increased savings due to
higher wages) and occurrence of natural disasters (i.e. increased capacity to make
home improvements; able to cope better with damaged property). The latter, on the
other hand, touches on all cited shocks since as stated, the increase in confidence
motivates them to solve their problems.
It was not mentioned explicitly by any respondent, but since they recognized
the improvements in their relationships and characters as individuals (becoming
better people), it can be inferred that the likelihood of the occurrence of broken
families is lessened as well. Because of transferring to Dumaguete City (for
employment purposes), increased wages, and improvements in character, it also
becomes less likely for respondents (and their children, since some respondents have
expressed the tendency to pass on learnings to them) to be involved in crime and
community conflicts.
On the other hand, however, some feel as though the program had no
relationship with the adverse effects brought about by the said shocks. Even for
respondents who acknowledged that the program lessened the aforementioned adverse

62

effects, a common sentiment among them was that certain shocks still persist. In other
words, the program has made a positive impact in this regard, but it is still quite
inadequate (kulang pa). This inadequacy stems from a perceived lack of income.
Despite garnering higher earning jobs as compared to their years in domestic work,
certain respondents still feel as though their wages are still insufficient.
As discussed in the results, majority (5) of respondents believe that they have
been put in a better position to move up in society both economically and socially
because of graduating from the program. This was primarily attributed to their
increase in skills and knowledge, which has various implications on their upward
mobility (according them), which also reflect their responses during the FGD. As
mentioned earlier, this has elicited in them courage and confidence in them to pursue
success. They also went on to say that these were applicable to their past and current
occupations, implying an increase in competence as well. One respondent even went
as far as saying that the new found knowledge and skill set in itself is a form of
moving up, particularly because they now have an edge over their constituents (who
did not participate in the program). However, it is important to note that 2 respondents
felt as though the program did not put them in a better position to move up
economically and socially. One respondent explained that the training was too
inadequate to make a difference in this regard, while the other simply felt that
nothing changed despite graduating.
C. Refining Program Objectives
As mentioned in the studys introductory section, the Kasambahay Human
Development Program has the following objectives:

63

1) To recognize the valuable contribution of household workers to our society by giving them the
opportunity to learn and enhance certain skills necessary for their work.
2) To help mitigate the vulnerability of the household workers by helping them in developing
their socio-personal responsibility and enhancing their spiritual-moral life.
3) To prepare women and youth from vulnerable populations and victims of trafficking for the
job market by providing IT skills training, livelihood programs and psycho-spiritual
formation.
4) To provide opportunities and avenues for our volunteers to offer and share their knowledge,
skills and faith to our partner-recipients.

Based on the studys results, such may require refinement in accordance to the
respondents definition of well-being, as well as the shocks they face with their
families. It is also important to note that one may perceive the nature of the program
to be problematic, in that the success indicator may either be producing highperforming domestic workers or to bring graduates outside domestic work (as
mentioned earlier). However, as recognized by VF, domestic work is a noble
profession and to increase the dignity and returns of the occupation, effectively
allowing domestic workers to escape the structures that oppress them without leaving
the occupation per se. Because of this, it is unnecessary to alter program objectives to
one particular route (e.g. domestic work or occupation outside it), but one that caters
to all possible choices the program makes available to its participants. With all of
these being said, found below are the refined program objectives and are reflected
in the recommendations discussed in the next section.
1) To increase the returns and dignity of domestic work by giving them the opportunity to learn
and enhance certain skills necessary for their work.
2) To prepare household workers for the job market if they choose to leave domestic work by
providing training on livelihood skills and psycho-spiritual formation.

64

3) To help mitigate the vulnerability of the household workers by linking them different services
that offer financial support, educational opportunities, and safety nets in the experience abuse
and/or times of disaster
4)

To aid household workers in their family lives by developing their socio-personal

responsibility and enhancing their spiritual-moral life.

5) To provide opportunities and avenues for our volunteers to offer and share their knowledge,
skills and faith to our partner-recipients.

65

6. Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations

6.1 Summary and Conclusion
In evaluating VFs Kasambahay Human Development Program, the area of
focus is impact or outcomes. However, as Arturo Escobar advocates in
Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World,
definitions for positive outcomes and definitions for well-being should not be
dictated by external sources. Instead, the appropriate course of action is to base such
on local contexts of the subjects of development. This post-development
perspective served as the foundation in conducting the impact evaluation. Because of
this, impact was measured using the Voices of the Poor Methodology, which makes
use of qualitative methods in obtaining the subjects definition of well-being. The said
definition then served as the basis of whether the program brought about positive
outcomes or not. The study was guided under Phillips Five-Level ROI Framework,
which touches on other aspects of program effectiveness (1) Reaction, Satisfaction,
and Planned Action, (2) Learning, (3) Application and Implementation, (4) Impact,
and (5) Return on Investment (ROI).
A. Inquiries on definition of well-being, shocks faced, and insights on upward mobility

The domestic workers definition of well-being is primarily comprised of six

criteria. The first three are access to (1) basic needs, (2) proper education, and
obtaining (3) good employment. The respondents expounded on basic needs by
citing eating three times per day, having durable shelter (to withstand calamities), and
possessing means for communication (e.g. mobile phones, WIFI, etc.). They also
acknowledged that obtaining an adequate educational background increases the
possibly for them to possess decent employment. Respondents also cited (4) access to
services (e.g. government, NGOs, and others) and explained that these can serve as

66

safety nets in instances wherein the previous criteria for having a good life are not
present. These individuals put an emphasis on family, evident in them mentioning
having a (5) good family life and (6) providing the same criteria for well-being to
their children.
The typical shocks domestic workers and their families suffer are (1) loss of
financial capacity (e.g. loss of employment), (2) occurrence of broken families, (3)
crime and community conflicts (particularly those brought about by the
insurgency), and the (4) occurrence of natural disasters. Despite these, the
respondents still believed that it is possible for them to move up in society both
economically and socially. They cited that one needs (1) confidence and courage,
which is brought about by (2) competence (stems from educational background).
They also mentioned that one needs to (3) work hard and (4) always have hope,
coupled with (5) opportunities to move up being present.
B. Program Participation
The respondents joined the program under their own initiative, reflecting their
intrinsic desire to move up in society and attain well-being. Because of this, they were
willing to travel an average distance of 10.58 KM while shouldering average
transportation expenses of 32.26 PhP. The participants typically consisted of working
students (domestic workers who worked in exchange for educational funding), which
makes it no surprise that their employers had no problem with them joining the
program during their day-off.
C. Reaction, Satisfaction, and Planned Action
The programs modules/activities, facilitators/educators, and facilities set by
organizers were all positively evaluated by the respondents. However, some concerns

67

regarding the comprehensiveness of the modules and the adequacy of facilities were
expressed. Regarding the former, a concern that was expressed that the content of the
modules was not exactly what they expected going into the program.
D. Learning (increase in knowledge)
Participants appear to learned a significant amount of knowledge and skills
that are new to them. It is worth noting that the lowest rated activity in this regard was
Fruit Carving, particularly because it was purely lecture-based and offered no
opportunity for application.
E. Application and Implementation (change in behavior)
The respondents applied their new found knowledge and skills most frequently
for the following modules/activities (1) Hygiene and Sanitation in the Kitchen, (2)
Simple Cookery, (3) Microsoft Unlimited Potential (STEP-UP) Computer Literacy,
(4) Basic Household Tips and First-Aid, (5) Basic Education/Story Telling Seminar,
(6) Inter-Personal Relationship (IPR), and (7) Personality Development. The
knowledge and skills these activities brought about proved to be transferrable to their
past and current profession outside domestic work (especially those who worked in
the food-service industry). Furthermore, these were also applicable to other aspects of
their lives, not only because they frequently used their kitchens at home but they also
recognized the value of improved social skills and becoming better people
(especially attributable by the last two activities cited, which both yielded the
maximum score).
On the other hand, (1) Agri-training, (2) ECO-SWARM Literacy, (3) Fruit
Carving, and (4) Business and other Livelihood Skills yielded the lowest scores. It is
especially for these activities that respondents expressed that they had little or no use

68

for. It is important to note, however, that some respondents did acknowledge that
these did bring about benefits despite the low frequency of use.
F. Impact Results
The Kasambahay Human Development Program brought about improvements
in the participants performance as domestic workers and their employers in domestic
work benefitted from the said improvements. This typically manifested in tasks that
involved cooking, cleaning, and gardening. Similar sentiments (when past
occupations are considered) were shared when asked whether their employees outside
domestic work benefitted from their graduation from the program (e.g. no longer need
to be trained). The respondents also recognized that the said learnings benefitted other
aspects of their lives as well. This was exemplified by the perceived health benefits
brought about by improved sanitation at home, as well as their improvement as
individuals (became better people) and in their social skills.
G. Return on Investment (ROI)
Respondents who went on to pursue occupations outside domestic work not
only yielded ROIs, but profited from participating and graduating from the program.
This was due to significant wage increases in comparison to their salaries while in
domestic work (up to 3,815 PhP per month).
H. Impact: Voices of the Poor
Majority of the domestic workers found that graduating from the program
improved their state of well-being. Their new found knowledge and skills
complemented the premium they put on having an adequate educational background.
The fact that VF sponsored the further studies of certain respondents contributed to
this criterion as well. Furthermore, because of their improvements in social skills

69

and becoming people, they experienced improvements in their relationships not

only with family members but in other social circles as well. They also recognized the
improvements in certain aspects of life at home (e.g. better hygiene, improved
cooking skills, etc.) as positive contributions to their state of well-being. The
respondents perceived themselves to be more valuable as workers, which aids in
attaining decent employment. However, the respondents mentioned that graduating
from the program only led to minimal improvements to their state of well-being.
Majority of respondents felt as though the adverse effects brought about by
shocks were lessened as a result of graduating from the program. Working in higher
paying jobs has mitigated the risks of losing financial capacity and the occurrence of
natural disasters. Since they have improved their relationships and have become better
people (the values of which respondents tend to pass on to their children), likelihood
of broken families and being involved in crime and community conflicts is
effectively reduced. However, a few participants felt as though the program had no
relationship whatsoever with the shocks that they face. These continue to persist and
they are still unable to cope. Lastly, the respondents believed that it is possible to
move up in life both economically and socially. Their new found knowledge and
skills has brought about confidence and courage in them to pursue success, as well as
making them more competent individuals. On the contrary, some respondents felt as if
the program did not put them in a better position to move up in society.

70

6.2 Recommendations
A. Consultation with Domestic Workers and Make Changes to Modules/Activities
To address concerns regarding the modules/activities, VF needs to consult
with domestic workers (both potential participants and SUMAPI members) and make
an inquiry on what they want to learn, which should not only be in line with the skills
and information they want to obtain but perhaps the occupation they want to pursue in
the future. With the insights drawn from the said consultation, the organization needs
to make adjustments to the modules/activities in terms of content and the allocation of
sessions (more should be allocated on frequently applied learnings). The results of the
study suggest that (1) Agri-training, (2) ECO-SWARM Literacy, (3) Fruit Carving,
and (4) Business and other Livelihood Skills need to undergo changes, whether in
shortening the time allocated for such or tailor fitting the content to the needs of
domestic workers.
B. Linking Participants to Services
VF should link participants to services that will decrease their vulnerability to
certain shocks and for them to attain certain criteria found in their definition of wellbeing. To be more specific, they should be linked to institutions that can offer
financial support (in order for them to gain access to basic needs, attain education, or
mitigate adverse effects of shocks), educational opportunities, and simply function as
safety nets in instances of abuse (whether from spouse, employer, etc.) and natural
disasters. This is especially important since the participants acknowledged that
access to services is a criterion for well-being in itself.

71

C. Aid Finding Employment Outside Domestic Work

Although the respondents that their increase in knowledge and skills has
benefited them in their occupations outside domestic work, it is uncertain whether
graduating from the Kasambahay Human Development Program has aided them in
gaining employment. In other words, are employers outside domestic work more
likely to hire program graduates rather than those who are not? With this being said,
VF should find means to aid graduates in finding employment outside domestic work
only if they choose to leave the profession. This can be accomplished through
establishing partnerships with certain companies.

72

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Visayanforum.org, (2015). About Us | Visayan Forum. [online] Available at:
http://www.visayanforum.org/wp/about-us/ [Accessed 12 Nov. 2015].
Sayres, N. (2007). An Analysis of the Situation of Filipino Domestic Workers.
International Labour Organization (ILO).
Domestic Workers in the Philippines: Profile and Working Conditions. (2011).
International Labour Organization (ILO).
Seneris, R. Interviewed by: Sy, J. (2nd December 2015).
Parmanand, S. Interviewed by: Sy, J. (4th November 2015).
Kasambahay Human Development Program History and Rationale private
document obtained from Romualdo Dondee Seneris II, VF Regional Director
Kasambahay Human Development Program Schedule (2015-2016) private
document obtained from Romualdo Dondee Seneris II, VF Regional Director
Ilo.org, (2015). Convention C189 - Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189).
[online]

Available

at:

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INS
TRUMENT_ID:2551460 [Accessed 1 Dec. 2015].
Lawphil.net,

(2015).

P.D.

No.

442.

[online]

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1974/pd_442_1974.html

Available
[Accessed

at:
1

Dec. 2015].
White, Howard. (2009). Theory-Based Impact Evaluation: Principles and Practice.
New Delhi, India: The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).

73

Rogers, J. et al. (2012). Introduction to Impact Evaluation. InterAction and The

Rockefeller Foundation.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2001).
Evaluation Feedback for Effective Learning and Accountability.
Gertler, P. et al. (2007). Impact Evaluation in Practice. Washington, DC: World Bank.
-

Imas, Linda G. M., and Ray C. Rist. 2009. The Road to Results: Designing
and Conducting Effective Development Evaluations. Washington, DC: World
Bank.

Khandker, S., et. al. (2010). Handbook on Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Methods
and Practices. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the
Third World. Princeton University Press.
Well-being

(n.d.).

Retrieved

March

18,

2016,

from

http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/wellbeing
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of
research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review of psychology, 52(1),
141-166.
Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new
conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3),
837-861.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(6), 1069.

74

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for
a national index. American psychologist, 55(1), 34.
Voices

of

the

Poor.

(n.d.).

Retrieved

March

20,

2016,

from

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,content
MDK:20622514~menuPK:336998~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:33699
2,00.html
Narayan-Parker, D., & Patel, R. (2000). Voices of the poor: can anyone hear us?.
World Bank Publications.
Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. K., & Petesch, P. (2000). Voices of the Poor:
Crying out for Change. New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.
Narayan-Parker, D., & Petesch, P. L. (2002). From many lands. World Bank
Publications.
The World Bank (1999). Consultations with the Poor: Methodology Guide for the 20
Country Study for the World Development Report 2000/01. World Bank Publications.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the
American Society of Training Directors, 13, 3-26.
Phillips, J. J. (1991). Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods.
(2nd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.
Brewer, T. (2007). USE OF PHILLIPSS FIVE LEVEL TRAINING EVALUATION
AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK IN THE U. S. NON-PROFIT
SECTOR. University of North Texas.

75

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Sciences Research: Principles, Methods, and

Practices. University of South Florida.
SPUD Kasambahay Human Development Program List of Partner-recipients from
2009-2014 (Tracker) private document obtained from Romualdo Dondee Seneris II,
VF Regional Director

76

8. APPENDIX
8.1 Appendix 1: Figures 1 to 4.1

77

78

79

80

81

8.2 Appendix 2: SPUD Kasambahay Human Development Program List of Partner-recipients from 2009-2014 (Tracker)
Kasambahays

Working Students

Col.Grads.

TESDA Grads

Individual

Employed into Other Jobs

OFW

Married

Producers
9 Total

30 Total staying w/

2 Total

10 total w/

6 Total

1 as

26-total now w/

employed as

guardians supporting

graduates(2015)

Bread and

now w/extra

Domestic

their own families

full time

their education

Pastry

income

worker in

kasambahays

37 Total now w/ other jobs

ProductionNCII

Jordan

at Teamskills
2 - referred

5 Secondary level

1 w/ HRM

1 employed at

5 into

A single parent

Female recipients

toTESDA

NOHS 2nd shift

course in

Chowking

Doormat

w/ 3 kids form

usually married to

1-SPUD Calo Farm manager

TWSP at

Manila(Survivor

making( 2 as

Pamplona,

male recipients

Teamskills

supported by

trainers)

Neg.Or., hired

and are now

BPP NCII(

VFFI )

as yaya,

staying at their

now w/ extra

attended ALS

homes.

income)

SPUD and
Sunday
sessions.

1 covered

1 -3rd yr.col. HRM course

1-w/ Education

1 now a

1-

1-now as senior salesman of

Mostly they go

with

in Bulacan,Mla.

At SPUD

col.student at

sewer/trainer

Dgte. Prompt Enterprise

back to their

(Distrbtr of Columbia Products)

hometowns, and

SSS/Philhealth

COSCA

by the

provinces

employer
1 3rd yr. col. Agri.Bus.-

1-Currently

1-as Brgy.Treasurer (Camanjac,

Norsu Pamplona DOST

employed as

Dgte.City)

scholar (before DOST-

kasambahay at

supported by

Forbes Park

VFFI/SUMAPI)

Mla.

2 Col.level at

2-as call center agents(Qualfon)

Foundation Univ.
1 Col.level at SPUD

1-now a Nursing Aide at NOPH

1 Col.level-Silliman

1-hired as Authorized specimen

Univ.

collector in a Drug Testing and

Med.Clinic

20 Col. Level at

Others hired as drivers, service

NORSU Main w/ courses

crews in Food establishments,

; - Agriculture,

department stores, hotels,and

Criminology, AB Gen.

other business establishments in

Soc.Sci.,Education, Civil

Dgte.,Cebu & Davao

Engr.,Food Tech,
Bus.Ad., & IT

82

8.3 Appendix 3: Data-gathering tool (English) Focus Group Discussion

INTRODUCTION
Good morning/afternoon/evening, Mam! My name is Jaime Luis Sy and I am a student from the Ateneo de Manila University. I
study in Manila but I am actually from Dumaguete, which is why I know how to speak Bisaya. I am currently conducting an
impact evaluation of the Kasambahay Human Development Program for my thesis.

This will entail two forms of data-gathering methods a (1) focus group discussion (FGD) and (2) individual interviews. The
FGD may last from 30 minutes to 1 hour, depending on how the discussion turns out. After this, there will be a short lunch break,
for which the food will be provided by VF. This will be followed by the individual interviews that will last 20 to 30 minutes
each. I guarantee that your identity will be kept confidential. Lastly, if at any time during the discussion that you may feel even
the slightest bit of discomfort, do not hesitate to let me know and I will end the session immediately.

Are you willing to participate in this study, which entails both the FGD and the individual interviews?

(IF NO TO PARTICIPATION)

I understand. Thank you nonetheless! You are free to stay for lunch as soon as we finish with the FGD. Before we start, please
sign this consent form.

(IF YES TO PARTICIPATION)

Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study!

(AFTER SIGNING)

Thank you for signing the consent forms! Let us now begin with the first phase of data-gathering the FGD. This will entail me
asking some questions, and we will answer them together. Is it okay for me to record this discussion? This will simply help me
take not of your responses.

(IF NO TO RECORDING)

I understand. This FGD, then, will not be recorded. Let us now begin.

(IF YES TO RECORDING)

Thank you once again! Let us now begin.

83

CONSENT FORM

I voluntary agree to participate in this study. I understand that I may withdraw

participation in this study at any point without penalty.

My participation is subject to the following conditions:

1. That adequate safeguards will be provided to maintain the privacy and
confidentiality of my responses.
2. That my name will not be used to identify my responses.

______________________________
Participant Signature

______________________________
Date

84

FGD GUIDE
1) How would you define well-being or good quality of life?
Probe: What are the different criteria that constitute a state of wellbeing? Let us list down these criteria together.

2) What are the kinds of shocks that make you/your family insecure or put you at
greater risk?
(Introduce concept of shocks after answer)

3) Is it possible for you to move up in society both economically and socially?

If YES, what do you think is needed for you to move up? Let us list
down these criteria together.
If NO, why not?

85

8.4 Appendix 4: Data-gathering tool (Bisaya) Focus Group Discussion

INTRODUCTION

Maayong buntag/hapon/gabii, mga Mam! Ako kay si Jaime Luis Sy ug studyante ko gikan sa Ateneo de Manila University. Didto ko ga skuyla sa
Manila pero diri jud ko gikan sa Dumaguete, mao ni ngano kabalo ko mo sturya ug Bisaya.

Para sa akong thesis, gabuhat ko ug impact evaluation sa Kasambahay Human Development Program. Ang pasabot ani kay gina tun an nako kung
epektibo ba or dili ang kining programa sa Visayan Forum.

Sa pagbuhat ani, duha ka buok ang data-gathering methods usa ka (1) focus group discussion (FGD), ug mga (2) individual interviews. Ang FGD
kay pwede mo abot ug traynta ka minuto padung usa ka oras, depende kung unsa ka layo ang mga abtan sa atong diskusyon. Pagkahuman ani,
maglunch break usa ta. Naa may gi priparar nga pagkaon ang VF para sa ato-a karong adlawa. Pagkahuman pud ani, mag sugod na ta sa individual
interviews na mu abot ug baynti padung traynta ka minuto. Ayaw mo ug kabalaka, kay siguraduhon nako na ang inyong mga identitad ug mga
pangalan kay siguruhon nako nga mga tago. Unya kung dili namo comportable sa atong sturyaan sa FGD, ingna lang ko kay undangon dayon nako.

Okay lang ba ninyo na mo apil sa gipang ingon nako?

(IF NO)

Sige mga Mam, kasabot ko. Salamat ra gihapon sa pagadto dinhi! Kung ganahan mo, pwede mo ka kapabilin hantod mahuman namo ang FGD
para makakuyog mo sa pani-udto.

(IF YES)

Salamat sa inyong pagsugot na mo apil sa akong gitun-an. Bag-o ta mo sugod, palihog ko ug papirma sa kani nga mga consent form na gasulti na ni
sugot mo na mo apil sa akong gitun-an.

(AFTER SIGNING)

Salamat jud kayo, mga Mam. Magsugod na ta sa atong FGD. Ang pasabot ani kay naa kuy mga pangutan-un ninyo, unya magkuyog ta sapagtubag
ani nila. Okay lang ba na i-record nako ang atong diskusyon? Dako man ni siya ug tabang sa pagtranscribe.

(IF NO TO RECORDING)

Kasabot ko, mga Mam. Dili na nako i-record ang atong FGD. Magsugod na ta.

(IF YES TO RECORDING)

Salamat jud kayo usob, mga Mam. Magsugod na ta.

86

CONSENT FORM

Ako kay boluntaryo nga mo apil sa kining impact evaluation sa Kasambahay Human
Development Program. Kasabot ko na pwede ko mo back out ug mo hawa bisang
kanus-a na walay silto ug multa.

Ang akong pag-apil kay naa sa ilalom sa mga kondisyon na protektahan ang akong
identitdad ug dili apilon ang akong pangalan sa mga tubag nako.

______________________________
Participants Signature

______________________________
Date

87

FGD GUIDE
1) Unsa ang inyong pagsabot sa maayo/patsada nga kinabuhi?
Probe: Unsa man ang mga butang sa inyong kabuhi nga kilanlan para
makasulti mo nga patsada ang kinabuhi. Panglistahun nato ni tanan.

2) Unsa man ang gakahitabo sa inyong kinabuhi nga gabutang sa inyo ug sa

inyong mga pamilya sa kondisyon nga walay sekuridad/risgado?
(Introduce concept of shocks after answer)

3) Para ninyo, possible ba nga mo angat mo sa katilingban/society? Pwede ni siya

sa paagi nga pinansyal, pwede pud sa uban pa nga mga paagi.

Kung

OO,

unsa

man

ang

kilanlan

para

katilingban/society? Panglisatahun nato ni tanan.

Kung DILI, ngano man?

88

mo

angat

sa

8.5 Appendix 5: Data-gathering Tool (English) Interview

INTRODUCTION

Good morning/afternoon/evening, Mam! We shall now proceed to the second phase

of data-gathering individual interviews. Before I begin, may I ask if it is okay for
me to record this interview? This this help be in taking note of your responses.

(If YES)
Thank you, Mam. Similar to the FGD conducted earlier, your identity will be kept
confidential. Once again, if at any time during the interview that you may feel even
the slightest bit of discomfort, do not hesitate to let me know and I will end the
session immediately. Let us now begin.

(If NO)
I understand, Mam. This interview, then, will not be recorded. Similar to the FGD
conducted earlier, your identity will be kept confidential. Once again, if at any time
during the interview that you may feel even the slightest bit of discomfort, do not
hesitate to let me know and I will end the session immediately. Let us now begin.

89

A. Demographic Profile

1.

What is your nickname?

2.

How old are you?

3.

What is your current civil status?

__ Single __Married __ Widowed
(Put check mark on appropriate answer)

4.

What is your current occupation?

5.

What is your highest educational attainment?

Dependents

Number

__ Child(ren)
6.

Who is/are dependent on you financially?

__ Spouse
(Put check marks on those that apply and indicate the number
__ Parent(s)
of dependents per category)
__ Other relatives
__ Other (Specify: ____________)

7.

How many years of experience do you have in domestic work?

8.

How many employers have you worked under in domestic

work?

9.

What year did you graduate from the Kasambahay Human

__ 2010 __ 2011 __ 2012 __2012 __2013 __2014 __ 2015

Development Program?
(Put check mark on appropriate answer)

90

B. Participation in the Kasambahay Human Development Program

Activity
Agri-training
Hygiene and Sanitation in the Kitchen
10. Which activities of the Kasambahay Human
Simple Cookery
Development Program did you attend?
Inter-Personal Relationship (IPR)
(Put check marks on those that apply)
Personality Development
Basic Household Tips & First-Aid
NOTE: Give short descriptions for each of the
Fruit Carving
activities to aid in the recalling process
Microsoft Unlimited Potential (STEP-UP) Computer Literacy
Business and other Livelihood Skills
ECO-SWARM Literacy
__ Mine __ Employer

If MINE, how did you find out about

the program?

If MINE, what made you decide to

join the program?
11. Whose idea was it for you to enroll in the
program?

If EMPLOYER, do you happen to

know how he/she/they found out about
the program?

If EMPLOYER, why do you think

he/she/they wanted to enroll you in the
program?

91

Location

Distance

12. At the time of your participation in the program, where

was your place of work located?
Probe: How far is this from St. Pauls University?

__ Commute __ Walk __ Other (Specify: ____________)

13. What was your means of transportation in attending the

If COMMUTE, do you happen

programs sessions?

to remember how much each

(Put check mark on appropriate answer)

commute cost?

__ Me
Probe: Who shouldered the costs
__ Employer
of your transportation?
__ Other (Specify: ____________)

C. Post-employment (after graduation)

__YES __ NO
14. (Reference to Section A, Item #4)
(If still employed in domestic work)
Are you still employed with the same employer who allowed you to
participate in the program?
Probe: If NO, why?

15. (Reference to Section A, Item #4)

(If no longer employed in domestic work)
How long did you stay with the employer who allowed you to participate in
the program upon graduation?

16. (Reference to Section A, Item #4)

(If no longer employed)
Why did you stop working?

92

D. Reaction, Satisfaction, and Planned Action

__ Very Dissatisfied
__ Somewhat Dissatisfied
__ Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
__ Somewhat Satisfied
__ Very Satisfied
17. During your participation, how satisfied were you with the program in terms of
activities/module contents?
Probe: Elaborate on your answer.

__ Very Dissatisfied
__ Somewhat Dissatisfied
__ Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
__ Somewhat Satisfied
__ Very Satisfied
18. During your participation, how satisfied were you with the program in terms of the
performance of facilitators/educators?
Probe: Elaborate on your answer.

__ Very Dissatisfied
__ Somewhat Dissatisfied
19. During your participation, how satisfied were you with the program in terms of the
__ Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
facilities set by the organizers?
__ Somewhat Satisfied
Probe: Elaborate on your answer.
__ Very Satisfied

93

20. As you went through the programs activities, did you develop any plan to translate
__ YES __ NO
your new found knowledge into action?

94

E. Learning (increase in knowledge)

21. Do you feel as if you have increased your knowledge
and learned new skills? Please answer in terms of
the programs activities found below.

Activity

(Check the appropriate answer)

(N/A if not applicable)
Learned nothing

Learned a
Learned a little bit

new
Agri-training

Hygiene and Sanitation in the Kitchen

Simple Cookery

Inter-Personal Relationship (IPR)

Personality Development

Basic Household Tips & First-Aid

Fruit Carving
Microsoft Unlimited Potential (STEP-UP) Computer
Literacy
Business and other Livelihood Skills

Basic Education/Story-telling Seminar

ECO-SWARM Literacy
Others:
A.
B.
C.

95

significant amount

F. Application and Implementation (change in behavior)

22. To what degree have you used
23. Please cite examples
your learnings into your current
as to how you use
profession and everyday life?
your learnings into
Please answer in terms of the
your current
Activity

programs activities found below.

profession and
(Check the appropriate answer)
everyday life?
(N/A if not applicable)
(N/A if not
Apply
Never apply

Apply often
sometimes

Agri-training

Hygiene and Sanitation in the Kitchen

Simple Cookery

Inter-Personal Relationship (IPR)

Personality Development

96

applicable)

Basic Household Tips & First-Aid

Fruit Carving

Microsoft Unlimited Potential (STEP-UP)

Computer Literacy

Business and other Livelihood Skills

Basic Education/Story-telling Seminar

ECO-SWARM Literacy

Others:
A.
B.
C.

97

G. Impact (results)
__ YES __ NO

If YES, how so? Please cite

examples.
24. As you participated in the program, were you beginning to see
improvements in your
25.

performance as a domestic worker?

If NO, why not?

If YES, how so? Please cite

examples.

26. Did/do you feel as if you have improved your performance as a

domestic worker after graduating from the program?
If NO, why not?

__ YES __ NO

27. Did/do you feel as if the employers who allowed you to participate in
If YES, how so? Please cite

the program benefited from your enrolment/graduation?

examples.

98

If NO, why not?

__ YES __ NO

If YES, please cite specific

examples.
28. Did/do you feel as if your employers (whether in domestic work or
not) benefited from your graduation from the program?

If NO, why not?

__ YES __ NO

If YES, please cite specific

29. Outside your occupation (whether in domestic work, not in domestic

examples.

work, or unemployed), do you feel that the program has benefitted

other aspects of your life?

If NO, why not?

-STOPDuring the FGD, we discussed your definition of well-being. The next few questions will require us to recall what we discussed.
-RESUME-

99

__ YES __ NO

30. Has graduating from the program changed your state of wellIf YES, how so?

being in any way?

__ YES __ NO

31. Has graduating from the program mitigated the adverse

effects from the shocks you/your family faced or continue to
If YES, how so?

face?

__ YES __ NO

32. Has graduating from the program made you (or at least put
If YES, how so?

you in a better position) to move up in society?

If NO, why not?

33. Are you happy with your current profession?

34. What are your hopes and fears for the future? Please cite
specific examples.

100

H. Return on Investment (ROI)

35. Prior to your enrolment in the program, how much was your
monthly wage as a domestic worker?

__YES __ NO

36. As you participated in the program, did you, in anyway, receive

additional monetary gains (e.g. increase in wage, started small

If YES, how so? Please cite

specific examples.

business, etc.)?

101

__YES __ NO
37. (Reference to Section A, Item #4 still in domestic work)
OPTIONAL:
Has your salary increase as opposed to your previous wage before
How much is your monthly wage in your current
enrolling into the program?
employment in domestic work?

__YES __ NO

If YES, how long have you been working under

38. (Reference to Section A, Item #4 still in domestic work)
this new employer?
Are you still with the same employer who allowed you to enroll in
the program?

If NO, what made you leave?

__ YES __ NO
39. (Reference to Section A, Item #4 if no longer in domestic work)
(Probe)

Has your salary increased in your current profession as opposed to

your previous wage in domestic work?

OPTIONAL:

Probe: How long have you been working under this new employer?

How much is your monthly wage in your current

profession?

102

8.6 Appendix 6: Data-gathering Tool (Bisaya) Interview

INTRODUCTION

Maayong buntag/hapon/gabii, Mam! Magsugod na ta sa atong individual interview.

Bag-o ani, mangutana lang ko usob kung okay lang ba nimo na i-record ang atong
interview? Dako man ni siya ug tabang sa pagtranscribe.

(If YES)
Salamat, Mam. Ayaw ug kabalaka kay parehas sa atong FGD ganiha, ang imong
identitad ug pangalan kay siguruhon nako nga mga tago. Unya kung dili naka
comportable sa atong sturyaan diri sa interview, ingna lang ko kay undangon dayon
nako. Magsugod na ta.

(If NO)
Kasabot ko, Ma;m. Ang kining interview kay dili nako i-record. Ayaw ug kabalaka
kay parehas sa atong FGD ganiha, ang imong identitad ug pangalan kay siguruhon
nako nga mga tago. Unya kung dili naka comportable sa atong sturyaan diri sa
interview, ingna lang ko kay undangon dayon nako. Magsugod na ta.

103

A. Demographic Profile

1.

Unsa ang imong nickname?

2.

Pila na imong edad?

3.

Unsa imong civil status sa karon nga panahon?

__ Single __Married __ Widowed
(Put check mark on appropriate answer)

4.

Unsa imong trabaho sa karon nga panahon?

5.

Unsa imong pinakataas nga na abdan sa imong pagskuyla?

Dependents
6.

Kinsa man ang ga depende nimo para suportahan sila sa

__ (Mga) anak

paaging pinansyal?

__ Asawa

(Put check marks on those that apply and indicate the number

__ (Mga) ginikanan

of dependents per category)

__ Uban nga mga kapamilya

Number

__ Uban ba (Specify: ____________)

7.

Pila ka tuig (na) nag/gatrabaho sa domestic work/pagkakasambahay?

8.

Pila ka buok nga amo ang imong na trabahuan/na agyan sa

domestic work/pagka-kasambahay?

9.

Unsa ka nga tuig ni graduate/nahuman sa Kasambahay Human

__ 2010 __ 2011 __ 2012 __2012 __2013 __2014 __ 2015

Development Program?
(Put check mark on appropriate answer)

104

B. Participation in the Kasambahay Human Development Program

Activity
Agri-training
10. Unsa nga mga activity/module sa Kasambahay

Hygiene and Sanitation in the Kitchen

Human Development Program ang imong gi-

Simple Cookery

attend?

Inter-Personal Relationship (IPR)

(Put check marks on those that apply)

Personality Development
Basic Household Tips & First-Aid

NOTE: Give short descriptions for each of the

Fruit Carving

activities to aid in the recalling process

Microsoft Unlimited Potential (STEP-UP) Computer Literacy

Business and other Livelihood Skills
ECO-SWARM Literacy
__ Ako-a __ Amo

Kung AKO-A, giunsa nimo

pagkabalo kabahin sa programa?

Kung AKO-A, ngano man ka ni apil

sa programa?
11. Kinsa man nag huna-huna nga mo apil ka sa
programa?

Kung AMO, kabalo baka kung giunsa

niya/nila pagkahibalo kabahin sa
programa?

Kung AMO, ngano man ka niya/nila

ganahan nga ipa-apil sa programa?

105

Location

Distance

12. Katong ga-apil paka sa programa, asa man dapit ang

imong gitrabahuan?
Probe: Unsa man to kalayo gikan sa St. Pauls
University?

__ Commute __ Lakaw __ Uban pa (Specify: ____________)

Kung COMMUTE,
13. Giunsa man nimo pag-adto sa mga sesyon sa programa?
(Put check mark on appropriate answer)

kahinundum pa baka kung tagpila

man ang kada byahe?

__ Ako
Probe: Kinsa man nagbayad sa
__ Amo
imong commute?
__ Uban pa (Specify: ____________)

C. Post-employment (after graduation)

__OO __ DILI
14. (Reference to Section A, Item #4)
(If still employed in domestic work)
Ga trabaho pa ba ka sa parehas nga amo nga ni sugot nga mo apil ka sa
programa?
Probe: Kung DILI, ngano man?

15. (Reference to Section A, Item #4)

(If no longer employed in domestic work)
Pagkagraduate nimo sa programa, unsa paman ka dugay ni trabaho sa
amo nga ni sugot nga mo apil ka sa programa?

16. (Reference to Section A, Item #4)

(If no longer employed)
Ngano man ka ni undang ug trabaho?

106

D. Reaction, Satisfaction, and Planned Action

__ Wala jud matagbaw

__ Medyo wala matagbaw
__ Wala kuy gibati
__ Dili kaayo tagbaw
__ Tagbaw kaayo
17. Katung ga apil paka sa programa, unsa man ka katagbaw/kontento sa mga
activity/module?
Probe: Alayun ug pa-explain sa inyong tubag.

__ Wala jud matagbaw

__ Medyo wala matagbaw
__ Wala kuy gibati
__ Dili kaayo tagbaw
18. Katung ga apil paka sa programa, unsa man ka katagbaw/kontento sa facilitators or

__ Tagbaw kaayo

katong ga tudlo ninyo?

Probe: Alayun ug pa-explain sa inyong tubag.

__ Wala jud matagbaw

19. Katung ga apil paka sa programa, unsa man ka katagbaw/kontento sa mga

__ Medyo wala matagbaw

pasilidad/mga gamit nga gi gamit ninyo?

__ Wala kuy gibati

Probe: Alayun ug pa-explain sa inyong tubag.

__ Dili kaayo tagbaw

__ Tagbaw kayo

107

20. Katung ga apil paka sa programa, nagsugod na ba ka ug plano nga gamiton ang
__ OO __ DILI
imong mga bag-o nga na kat-unan?

108

E. Learning (increase in knowledge)

21. Para nimo, ni daghan ba ang imong nahibaw-an ug
nakat-unan tungod sa mga activities/modules sa
Activity

programa?
(Check the appropriate answer)
(N/A if not applicable)
Walay nakat-

Gamay lang ang

Daghan ang

unan

nakat-unan

natun-an

Agri-training

Hygiene and Sanitation in the Kitchen

Simple Cookery

Inter-Personal Relationship (IPR)

Personality Development

Basic Household Tips & First-Aid

Fruit Carving
Microsoft Unlimited Potential (STEP-UP) Computer
Literacy
Business and other Livelihood Skills

Basic Education/Story-telling Seminar

ECO-SWARM Literacy
Uban pa:
D.
E.
F.

109

F. Application and Implementation (change in behavior)

22. Gina-gamit ba nimo ang mga
23. Hatag ug mga
nakat-unan nimo gikan sa
halimbawa/examples kung
programa? Dili lang ni siya
gi-unsa nimo paggamit sa
limitado sa trabaho, pwede
imong mga nakat-unan
pud sa uban sa aspeto sa
gikan sa programa. Dili
imong kabuhi.

Activity

lang ni siya limitado sa

(Check the appropriate
trabaho, pwede pud sa
answer)
uban sa aspeto sa imong
(N/A if not applicable)
kabuhi.
Dili jud

Tig gamit

tig gamit

usahay

Sigig gamit

Agri-training

Hygiene and Sanitation in the Kitchen

Simple Cookery

Inter-Personal Relationship (IPR)

Personality Development

110

(N/A if not applicable)

Basic Household Tips & First-Aid

Fruit Carving

Microsoft Unlimited Potential (STEP-UP)

Computer Literacy

Business and other Livelihood Skills

Basic Education/Story-telling Seminar

ECO-SWARM Literacy

Uban pa:
A.
B.
C.

111

G. Impact (results)
__ OO __ DILI

Kung, OO, sa unsa nga paagi?

Hatag ug mga halimbawa/examples.

24. Katong ga apil paka sa programa, nagsugod na ba ka ug kita ug

pagmaayo sa imong trabaho nga pagka-kasambahay/domestic
worker?

Kung DILI, sa unsa mga paagi?

Hatag ug mga halimbawa/examples.

Kung, OO, sa unsa nga paagi?

Hatag ug mga halimbawa/examples.

25. Para nimo, ni maayo ba imong pagtrabaho bilang

kasamabahay/domestic work paggraduate nimo sa programa?

Kung DILI, ngano man?

112

__ OO __ DILI

Kung OO, hatag ug mga

halimbawa/examples.

26. Para nimo, naa bay ni maayo sa kabuhi sa imong (mga) amo nga ni
sugot nga mo apil sa programa tungod sa imong paggraduate?

Kung DILI, ngano man?

__ OO __ DILI

Kung OO, hatag ug mga

halimbawa/examples.

27. Para nimo, naa bay ni maayo sa kabuhi sa imong (mga) amo karon
tungod sa imong paggraduate sa program?

Kung DILI, ngano man?

113

__ OO __ DILI

Kung OO, hatag ug mga

28. Walay apil sa imong trabaho, naa bay ni maayo sa uban nga aspeto

halimbawa/examples.

sa imong kabuhi tungod sa paggraduate sa program?

If DILI, ngano man?

-STOP-

Katong nagFGD na ganiha, nagsturya ta kabahin sa imong pagsabot sa maayo nga kabuhi. Mao ni siya ang gina-tawag nga
well-being sa Ingles. Kilanlan nato to hinunduman ang atong gi-sturyaan para sa sunod nga mga pangutana.

-RESUME-

__OO __ DILI

29. Naa bay nilahi sa kalidad sa imong kabuhi/well-being

Kung OO, sa unsa nga paagi?

pagkahuman nimo ug graduate gikan sa programa?

__OO __ DILI

30. Paggraduate nimo sa program, ni gamay/lessen ba ang mga

bati nga epekto sa mga shocks sa kabuhi nimo ug sa imong
Kung OO, sa unsa nga paagi?

pamilya?

114

__OO __ DILI

31. Na butang baka sa mas maayo nga posisyon para mo angat sa

katiligban/society pagkahuman nimo ug graduate sa
Kung OO, sa unsa nga paagi?
programa?

Kung DILI, ngano man?

32. Nalipay baka sa imong trabaho karon?

33. Unsa man imong mga paglaum/inaasahan ug mga

gikahadlukan para sa kinabukasan/future?

115

H. Return on Investment (ROI)

34. Bag-o ka ni apil sa programa, pila man imong sweldo bilang

kasambahay/domestic worker?

__OO __ DILI

35. Katong ga apil pa ka sa programa, ni daghan ba imong kita? (Cite

examples: Ni taas ang sweldo; ni sugod ug gamay nga negosyo)

Kung OO, hatag ug mga

halimbawa/examples.

__OO __ DILI
36. (Reference to Section A, Item #4 still in domestic work)
Ni taas ba imong sweldo karon kaysa katong panahon bag-o ka ni

OPTIONAL:

apil sa programa?

Pila man ang sweldo nimo kada bulan karun?

__OO __ DILI

37. (Reference to Section A, Item #4 still in domestic work)

Ga trabaho pa ba ka para sa amo nga nag pa-apil nimo sa

Kung OO, unsa naka kadugay ga trabaho para

ani nga amo?

programa?

Kung OO ngano man ka ni hawa?

116

__OO __ DILI
38. (Reference to Section A, Item #4 if no longer in domestic work)
(Probe)

Ni taas ba imong sweldo karon kaya katong ga trabaho ka bilang

kasambahay?

OPTIONAL:

Probe: Unsa naka kadugay ga trabaho sa imong trabaho karun?

Pila man imong sweldo kada bulan sa imong

trabaho karun?

117