Hearing the Voices of Domestic Workers

8/16/2019 Hearing the Voices of Domestic Workers

1/120

Hearing the Voices of Domestic Workers An Exploratory Impact Evaluation of the Visayan Forum Foundation’s Kasambahay

Human Development Program in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

An Undergraduate Thesis Presented

By

Jaime Luis G. Sy

Submitted to the Development Studies Program ofAteneo de Manila University in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts, major in Development Studies

May 23, 2016


2/120

Abstract

Hearing the Voices of Domestic Workers An Exploratory Impact Evaluation of the Visayan Forum Foundation’s Kasambahay

Human Development Program in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

Jaime Luis G. Sy

Domestic workers are an integral facet of Philippine culture, being widely prevalentwhile bringing about economic benefits. Despite this, domestic workers remain to bean 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 toanswer this with its Kasambahay Human Development Program. The program trainsdomestic workers on skills that are not only applicable to domestic worker, but alsotransferrable to other occupations (in addition to other facets of their lives). The impactevaluation adheres to the post-development perspective (Arturo Escobar), founded onthe domestic workers’ own definition of well -being. This was obtained using the Voicesof the Poor Methodology while other aspects of program effectiveness were coveredunder the study’s fr amework – Phillip s’ Five -Level ROI Framework. The study’sresults showed that the program indeed made a positive impact not only in the lives ofthe respondents, but also their employers inside and outside domestic work. Theirimprovement 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

program’s formative activities) led to improvement s in other facets of their lives (e.g.improved relationships, better hygiene at home, etc.). The program has also upliftedtheir own state of well-being (in accordance to their own definition), lessened theadverse effects of shocks they typically suffer from, and has put them in a better positionto “move up” in society both economically and socially. However, despite all theseimprovements and positive outcomes, several concerns were expressed over differentaspects of the program, typically centered on inadequacies. Lastly, the program has anissue with setti ng a coherent goal to indicate success. With the study’s results and theVoice of Domestic Workers , the Kasambahay Human Development Program shouldwork towards taking its participants out of domestic work and find employment inhigher paying occupations.


3/120

Contents1. 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 b ehavior) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 68

F. Impact Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69

G. Return on Investment (ROI) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 69

H. Impact: Voices of the Poor .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 696.2 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


4/120

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background: Domestic Work in the Philippines

Domestic workers are an integral part of Filipino society. In the country’s

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).

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

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2001 2010

Number of domestic workers(2001-2010)

3.2

96.8

Domestic workers in the labor force(15 years-old and above) (2010)

Domestic workers

Rest of labor force

1.925 Million

57%

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


5/120

2

38%

62%

Labor force (gender) (2010)

Women

Men 0.0%

2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%12.0%14.0%

2001 2010

Growth of women in domestic work(2001-2010)

84%

16%

Domestic worker labor force (gender)(2010)

Women

Men

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

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 memb ers 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).

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, women’s 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).


6/120

3


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 l ive-out or “flexible working time may be

interpreted as availability of service as and when required by the family” (ILO, 2011).

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.

8.10 9.00

2

4

6

8

10

Wage employees(private

establishments)

Domestic workers

Domestic workers vs. wage employees(working hours) (2010)

33%

20%

47%

Ave. working hours: domestic workers(2010)

9-10 hrs./day11 hrs. and aboveBelow 9 hrs.


7/120

4



P E S O S

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 “mone tary 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).

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

0

20

40

60

80100

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

Live-in domestic worker Live-out domestic worker

40%


8/120

5

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 non-

government 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


9/120

6

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

VF’s 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


10/120

7

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 employer’s 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.


11/120

8

The figure below contains the activities and module contents of the

aforementioned program.

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-

Activities/Module Description # of SessionsOrientation 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 traffickingin the Philippines, common abuses to domestic workers, as well as their rights and privileges; pre-requisite in availing of other subcomponents

1

Agri-Training Focuses on basic gardening/farming techniques 3 Hygiene & Sanitation inthe Kitchen

Module Contents Table Skirting Napkin Folding Setting the Table & Service Table Etiquette Guest Relations & Housekeeping

5

Simple Cookery Module Contents Baking Cookies/Brownies Baking Cakes Preserve Menu Preparing different desserts

3

Inter-Personal Relationship (IPR)

Contains lessons on basic etiquette, proper presentation of one’s self, and the like 2

Personality Development Module Contents Good Grooming Self-esteem & Confidence Decorum & Courtesy Stress Management

2

Basic Household HealthTips & First-Aid

Module Contents Home Safety Basic First-Aid/ Basic Aid Life Support BP taking

2

Fruit Carving - 2 Microsoft UnlimitedPotential (STEP-UP)Computer Literacy

Module Contents Computer Fundamental Spreadsheet Fundamental Word Processing Fundamental Excel Processing Fundamental Digital Media Fundamental Internet/World Wide Web Fundamental

8

Business and otherrelated Livelihood Skills

Module Contents Micro-enterprise Building Financial Literacy (e.g. “financial discipline;” “appropriate financial

management skills”)

3

Basic Education / StoryTelling Seminar

In partnership with Smart Communications, domestic workers are taught the value ofreading books and the potential of imparting values through story telling; teachesstory telling techniques and encourages domestic workers to read to or teach theirloved ones how to read; part of Smart’s “The Storytelling Project”

2

ECO-SWARM Literacy Educates domestic workers on solid waste management and recycling 1Culmination Activity Participants who qualify for graduation join the culmination activity, wherein SPUD

presents them with a certificate that certifies their completion of the program 1

TOTAL 35


12/120

9

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 program’s 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, VF’s solution to the “trafficking” or oppression of domestic workers is

to increase their human capital, not only in terms of capability (skills) but “psycho -

spiritual 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


13/120

10

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 org anization

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.


14/120

11

1.4 Significant of the Research

Objectives and Purpose of the Study

VF intends to replicate or scale-up the said training component of theKasambahay 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 program’s 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 component’s effectiveness. To quote Gertler, e t. 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 program’s 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 program’s 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 study’s 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 program’s current impact and the Voices of Domestic Workers , what coherent

goal should the program work for to indicate its success (or failure)?


15/120

12

1.5 Scope and Limitations

The scope of the study will be limited to VF’s 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 data-

gathering 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


16/120

13

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.


17/120

14

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 employer’s 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 employer’s 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 laundr y 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


18/120

15

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 in…measur[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 Bank’s Developme nt 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 f irst 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).


19/120

16

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 evaluat ion 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 outcome s and tries to assess what

diff erence 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


20/120

17

Source: Gertler, et.al (2007)

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:

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


21/120

18

results chain provides a useful map for selecting the indicators that will be measured

along the chain” (Gertler, et a l. 2007). For this study, the areas of focus will be

predominantly placed on “outcomes” and “final outcomes,” attempting to ask cause -

and-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 intervention’s 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,


22/120

19

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, p rogram

participants of development interventions are marginalized in a sense that the

definition of “well - being” is dictated by an exter nal agent. Evident from the

distribution of power implicit within the situation (i.e. development organization vis-

à-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 Escobar’s

Encountering Development : The Making and Unmaking of the Third World and his

analysis of the “discourse of development.” His work heavily relies on “Foucault’s

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 West’s” and its paternalistic and ethnocentric “discursive regime.”

The “First World’s” traditio ns 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).


23/120

20

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 Program’s

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 Merriam-

Webster d ictionary 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 Escobar’s 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,


24/120

21

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 Bank’s 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 coeffi cient, 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

Bank’s Poverty Assessments have relied largely upon data derived from large -scale

household surveys,” pertaining to those similar with the examples cited above


25/120

22

(Narayan-Parker, D., & Patel, R. 2000). Relating this to Escobar’s 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


26/120

23

- Have these problems changed over the years or have they remained the same? What

are people’s hopes and fears for the future?

3. “Institutional analysis”

- Which institutions are important in people’s lives?

- Which institutions support people in coping with crisis?

4. “Gender relations”

- What are the existing gender relations within the household?

- Are women empowered in today’s society?

The study will makes use of the subthemes found within the thematic areas above. Itis 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 Kirkpatrick ’s Levels of Evaluation. To quote the text, “nearly everyone would


27/120

24

agree that a definition of evaluation would be “to determine the effective ness 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 Description

Reaction, Satisfaction, and Planned Action

Program participants’ satisfaction is measured along with awritten plan for implementing what they have learned; thislevel varies from Kirkpatrick’s with the addition of an action

plan

Learning Focuses on assessing the skills and knowledge that the participants learned during training

Application and Implementation Measures changes in the behavior of the participant onceback on the job

Business Impact Measurement focuses on actual business results achievedafter participants are sent through training

Return on Investment Measurement at this level compares the monetary benefits from the program with the fully loaded cost to conduct the program.

Figure 2.2 : Phillip’s Five -Level ROI Framework (levels and description)


28/120

25

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 particip ants (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.


29/120

26

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

Kirkpatrick’s (1959) Levels of Evaluation. To quote the tex t, “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. Kirkpatrick’s 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 study’s RRL and the interplay be tween the theories and concepts

discussed, which developed the conceptual framework to be utilized, can be

summarized in the figure below:


30/120

27

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.


31/120

28

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 tograduate 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 parti cipants 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


32/120

29

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 schedule-

related 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 tool’s question s 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).


33/120

30

4.4 Schedule

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

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, specif ically in its “Conference Room,” in order to conduct the data-

gathering. This began at 10:00 am, starting with the FGD. This lasted for

May

Su M T W Th F S Su

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1

Phase #1

Data-gatheringEncoding of data

Phase #2

Analysis of data (impact evaluation)

AprilAGENDA


34/120

31

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 in-

depth 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.


35/120

32

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:


36/120

33

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 in-

depth 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 th e respondents

and their families, as well as their insights on “upward mobility” were covered as

well.


37/120

34

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, NGO’ s, 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)


38/120


39/120

36

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


40/120


41/120

38

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 t ry” 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


42/120


43/120

40

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


44/120

41

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 VF’s

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 excessivel

Documents

Hearing the Voices of Domestic Workers