SAGOP KINABUHI PROGRAM 2

REBUILDING COMMUNITY
CONNECTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE
LIVELIHOOD AMONG FORMER DRUG
DEPENDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES
IN DAVAO CITY
 CONTENTS

2 Introduction

3 Objectives

4 Methodology

7 Discussion
Socioeconomic Profile

12 Conclusion

12 References

14 Acknowledgement
 Introduction

The leading discourse in the area of drug addiction points out to the polarity of addiction and
social connection. When people are socially disconnected—when they are poor and vulnerable,
they tend to use illicit drugs more than socially adept ones (Hari, 2019). This paper explores how
and why in USeP SKP2 we emphasized the need for our VSRPs and their families to be socially
integrated through our various interventions. There is no proven science or social intervention
yet developed that is known to best address addiction and deliver community drug rehabilitation.
In this sense, USeP SKP2 as an extension program directly financed by the university with action
research component, tries be to systemic in our approach. By being systemic, we formed a
partnership comprised of the VSRPs, their families, community leaders, church, business and
regional agency representatives. Our partners take care of the aspects and/or lens of our
program, namely: social, economic, legal, criminal justice, human rights, physical health and
mental health.

The University of Southeastern Philippines (USeP) has conceptualized and implemented

the Sagop Kinabuhi Program 2 (SKP2) to help address the socioeconomic needs of those who
turned themselves in tokhang. We champion the interests of those who after tokhang, have
been branded and recorded as offenders, deviants and drug addicts in our positivist profiling
approaches which only target the main questions: how many are drug addicts in our community?
The SKP2 approach tries to be less of profiling but more on individual case management. We
adhere to the principles of capabilities approach (Nussbaum, 2011; Sen, 1999) to argue that what
we have been confronted right now after tokhang is not just the issue of drug dependency.
We must explore the complex deprivation experiences of former drug dependents being poor,
isolated, stigmatized, physically weak, and vulnerable. If we are only able to focus on certain
limited aspects and are not able to consider the critical importance of their feelings, anxiety,
happiness and dreams then we might not become successful because what we are basically
dealing with are humans too.

Many similar initiatives around the country especially those spearheaded by the local
government units (LGUs) call their clients “reformists” (Dizon, 2016), “surrenders” (Philippine Star,
2017) and “former drug addicts” (Sallaverria, 2016). In SKP2, we call them voluntary submission
for reformation persons (VSRPs). Quite a mouthful but the main intention is to establish a
conceptual and practical aversion from the stigma of banal branding of VSRPs being called
addicts, etc. In the program, we call them by their names as we always strive to make close
and supportive relationships with them, their families and community leaders. We call everyone
engaged in the SKP2 platform our friends and partners.

As partners, we encourage ourselves to be close to each other, maintaining a healthy and

productive social distance. It is important to make our social relationship open, congenial and
supportive so that we would be able to establish genuine trust among each other. SKP2 platform
allows leaders/experts and VSRPs and their families to work together. We ensure that each of
us has an active and strategic role to play. The platform enhances our listening capabilities such

2
 that we are able to consider our experiences as important as others’. This means to say that our
ideas as leaders and experts do not build the whole decision making discourse, we include the
voice, choice and agency of everyone especially the VSRPs and their families.

Just how exactly we listen to the voice, choice and agency of everyone, including the VSRPs’?
We conducted several teambuilding activities such as fun days in Eden Nature Park Resort in
Toril, Davao City and in USeP Obrero Campus. Our important meetings always involved not just
representatives of the partner agencies—we also include some VSRP representatives and their
barangay focal persons to make sure that our decisions would be reflective of the ideals and
interests of almost every one of us in the SKP2 platform. Giving each one a fair and equal
chance to talk, laugh, react and be able to show happiness, disgust and hate while remaining
respectful is one of the best things we have ever done to make sure that everyone counts. We
embody the ideals of deep democracy where each person is counted important regardless of
her/his stature, gender and religion. The process of putting our VSRPs and their families first
and us leaders/experts last, ensures that the SKP2 platform is transformatory (Chambers, 1995;
Gascon, 2017). Being able to help other people explore and develop their skills and capabilities
and realize their full potential as persons ‘to do and to be’ (Sen, 1999) is the centerpiece of SKP2.
We believe that through the enhanced agency or capability to decide for oneself, matched with
the capability to participate in a transformatory dialogic and economic process helps our VSRPs
and their families to become empowered and productive.

During the last conference, we were able to showcase and justify the main theoretical
foundations of SKP2 activities. We also presented the initial planning and implementation
highlights using the case studies on the lives and the significant positive improvements of our
VSRPs while engaged in SKP2.

Objectives

The main objectives of this paper are:

1) To describe the socio-economic profile of USeP SKP2 technical skills training

participants.
2) To identify issues and concerns confronted by USeP SKP2 community partners
while attending the training.
3) To identify solutions to address the issues and concerns confronted by USeP
SKP2 community partners while attending the training.

3
 Methodology

This paper centers on the main idea upon which SKP2 is anchored— enhancement of life
and livelihood skills among our VSRPs and their families for sustainable social, economic and
psychological enhancement and renewal. We argue that renewal needs the whole community to
work together to become successful. We need our church leaders, social workers, researchers,
community leaders and other experts to explore and address systemically the issues confronted
by our VSRPs. As a platform, SKP2 offers our VSRPs need-based pathways as illustrated in Figure
1.

Life Skills Spiritual

Enhancement Enhancement

Leadership
Training
Livelihood Skills
Enhancement

SKP2

Figure 1. VSRP’s Need-Based Pathways

4
 After a series of social gatherings, we run the psychosocial and spiritual training (PST)
for 19 weeks with the Archdiocesan Social Action Center under the Archdiocese of Davao as
facilitator. Our venue is at San Pablo Church in Matina, Davao City. After PST, we conducted
a series of consultations with our VSRPs and their families to ask them their training skills
priorities. We delivered the skills trainings in USeP Obrero Campus every Sunday for 15-18 weeks.

USeP SKP2 is an extension endeavor with action research component. The data we have
gathered, both quantitative and qualitative, were processed and reported back to our platform
partners in the form of Quarterly Progress Report. We meet our agency and church partners to
apprise them of our progress. During the same meetings, we also discuss issues and concerns
of our VSRPs, their families and other stakeholders directly involved in our implementation.

In this paper, case studies are presented to highlight the theoretical lens scaffolding the
USeP SKP2 approach for community drug rehabilitation. Our approach strives to be systemic
rather than systematic. Systemic thinking requires that we, as project implementers must
become co-participants in the process of generating data for our action research report
(McIntyre, 2002). Systemic thinking, applied in research, promotes axiology by being ethical in
the process of knowing what we know by placing our VSRPs and their families at the core of
everything that we do.

It must be highlighted that USeP SKP2, as an extension or development work, is not only
concerned with the delivery of systemic and strategic social, health and technical services. We
also try to contribute to the body of knowledge through our intensive review of literature, data
gathering and analysis and production of scholarly publications. We also affect the practice
through the action research sequences where we directly involved our stakeholders—VSRPs,
families, community partners and representatives of the church and regional government
agencies. Lastly, we affect the policy by influencing the legal and administrative discourse
around community drug rehabilitation both local and national. We come out with the Extension
Monitor as a form of policy brief for the communities in Davao City and the rest of the country
to know the latest accomplishments and recommendations related to our program for policy
consideration.

USeP SKP2 therefore, sustains the research-extension loop. Our faculty, staff students who
are engaged with us in our activities gain deeper understanding on the complex interrelationship
of drug addiction, poverty, human rights and dignity. We are able to develop a deep sense of
responsibility for our VSRPs, their families and communities. See Figure 2.

Personal data derived from our VSRPs and their families are kept confidential. We have a
matured case management system where we place progressively the individual baseline socio-
economic data. All progress or accomplishments of our clients are stored in the individual case
management file kept by our staff who is a registered social worker.

We use our case management summary to inform our action plans.

5
 Impact

Enhanced wellbeing and life chances

of our VSRPs and their families

Outcomes

• Enhanced participation capabilities

• Enchanced social connections
• Enhanced technical skills
• Enhanced leadership skills
• Enhanced and systemic community drug
• rehabilitation policies
• Reduced recividism rate

Tokhang and
Community drug
rehabilitation

Reshaping:
Practice Extension
Policy
Literature

Paticipatory
Action Research

Figure 2. Sustaining the research-extension loop through USeP SKP2

6
 Discussion

This section presents the analysis of data collected during the period of conducting the
technical skills trainings, from September to December 2018. Data presented are based on the
socioeconomic profile, problems met while attending the training and solutions to address the
problems met.

Socioeconomic Profile

Table 1 presents the socioeconomic profile of USeP SKP2 technical skills training
participants conducted in September to December 2018 in the College of Technology facilities
of USeP in Obrero Campus, Davao City. Our trainers are faculty members of USeP, some are
retirees while others are invitees from the industry. They facilitated classes, workshops, and
skills demonstrations during Sundays in USeP Obrero Campus.

Table 1. Socioeconomic profile of USeP SKP2 Technical Skills Training Participants

Age Count Percentage Gender Count Percentage

18 and below 4 3 Male 105 72
19-25 52 36 Female 39 27
26-30 29 20 Lesbian 2 1
31-35 29 20 Total 146 100
36-40 17 12
40 above 15 10
Total 146 100

Civil Status Count Percentage Employment Status Count Percentage
Single 85 58 Unemployed 24 16
Married 52 36 Self Employed 39 27
Separated 4 3 Employed 81 55
Live-in 5 3 None 2 1
Total 146 100 Total 146 100

Representation Count Percentage Monthly Income Count Percentage

of Participants
Original VSRPs 47 32 P10,000 below 78 53
Project Tabang 25 17 10,001-15,000 65 45
Family Members 74 51 15,000-20,000 1 1
Total 146 100 15,000-30,000 2 1
Total 146 100

Course Count Percentage

Bread & Pastry NC II 12 8
Computer Hardware Servicing NC II 10 7
Cookery NC II 11 8
Driving NC II 31 21
Electrical NC II 9 6
Motorcycle /Small Engine NC II 14 9
Plumbing NC II 25 17
Welding NC I 11 8
Welding NC II 23 16
Total 146 100
Source: USeP SKP2 Case Management File

7
 Most of the training participants are 19-25 years old, majority are male, single, employed,
majority have P10,000 and below monthly family income, are family members of our VSRPs and
most of them took either driving or welding.

Taking more family in our USeP SKP2 technical skills trainings helps us guarantee more
significant success in enhancing basic life skills including social and leadership skills of our
VSRPs and their family members. When their social skills are enhanced, they would be gelling
more easily with other people so that they would regain their confidence and counter social
stigma. Putnam and Goss (2002) argued that individual concept of trust and confidence have to
be established first before expecting any significant improvement in the social capital particularly
in terms of strengthened social cohesion and support.

Issues and concerns confronted by trainees while attending the training

This section explores personal and implementation issues confronted by our skills training
participants, trainers and other stakeholders involved in USeP SKP2. The purpose of identifying
issues related to skills training implementation is to determine more inclusive and strategic
solutions to improve our skills straining delivery in the future. In this approach we use Nussbaum’s
capabilities approach to argue that in delivering skills trainings for people empowerment, we
need to take into consideration individual and special needs of persons we work with. And we
need to spend more time, effort and money (if allowed and available) for those who need more,
to be ethical and more caring for the dignity of each person (p. 24-25, 2011). We use Chambers
(1983) to champion the interests of each person in USeP SKP2 by listening to their local wisdom
or ideas for them to become more functional and happy. Responding to strategic gender needs
(SGNs) is about giving the local people, especially the poor ones, the critical capabilities so that
they will be able to stand on their own feet sustainably. The opposite of SGN is the so-called
minimum basic needs approach popularized in the late 1980s to late 1990s. During that time, the
world development approach to poverty is providing basic needs of persons through dole out
(Moser, 2003).

Table 2 presents the top 3 most common issues raised by the skills training participants
whilst on training at USeP SKP2. These issues were derived through key informant interviews with
9 VSRPs and 5 family members and focus group discussion with 5 VSRPs and 2 family members.

Table 2. Common Issues Confronted by Skills Training Participants while on Training

Issues Count*

1. Lack of income to sustain basic needs. 13

2. Experience of hunger. 11

3. Lack of support from the local government (eg. transportation). 14

Source: Key informant interview and focus group discussion conducted in September 2018 to July 2019.
* derived from multiple responses.

8
 USeP SKP2 skills training participants identified as the number one issue the lack of income
to sustain basic needs of their families. This problem was also identified as the topmost even
during the last reckoning or review period of the program by Gascon and Ortiz (2019).

VSRP3 has this to say about his experience being unable to attend his training classes
sometimes at USeP:

“I had to be absent from my Sunday class sometimes because I need to prioritize earning
money to sustain my family’s basic needs for food and house rent. I don’t want us to experience
hunger again.”

FAM5 shared her ordeal being unable to contribute to her husband who is a recovering drug
dependent under USeP SKP2. She said:

“My husband’s income from his part-time tri-sikad driving is not enough for our 4 growing
children. I pity my children because they experienced hunger especially when my husband is not
able to drive tri-sikad.”

The experiences of VSRP3 and FAM5 are common among our VSRPs and family members
in the USeP SKP2. We looked at these issues as inherent challenges that can be addressed if
we were to look into the issues systemically. Chambers (1995) argued that in actual fact poor
peoples’ experience of poverty is multifaceted. It is in fact called a deprivation trap wherein a
poor person is not just experiencing poverty but of a whole range of other experiences such
as physical weakness, vulnerability and isolation. And that if we are not able to address them
in a systemic manner, our approach can be truncated or fragmented and we would not be
able to strategically help our VSRPs and families to become more functional and socially-adept
individuals.

The experience of hunger of FAM5 and her children calls for social justice. When social
justice is used as lens, hunger in this case is called involuntary hunger (Farthing, 2014; Panhwar,
2001; Shiva, 2001, 2015) where one, because of severe deprivation, being poorly skilled or educated,
economically poor and isolated, is not able to earn income for a living.

On the aspect of lack of local government units’ support particularly in terms of providing
transportation and food allowance to our trainees VSRP10 has this to say:

“We are being told to wait in an area for us to be fetched to USeP Obrero Campus but
they always fail to show up. We had to take the jeepney ride to USeP but we are already late.
Sometimes we had to be absent if we don’t have fare going to and from Obrero. Our LGU is not
supportive and thinks that what we do is just a joke. This is not a joke!”

Despite our catch-up meetings with the LGUs and other partners and of our reminders of
our duties in the USeP SKP2 as partners, as stipulated in the memorandum of agreement (MOA),
some partner LGUs fail to deliver their commitment. Community drug rehabilitation for them has

9
become one of the least prioritized programs as narrated below by one of the regional agency
representatives concerned with social services provision:

“The LGUs’ commitment is wavering these days. The barangay leaders are confused of
their duties as enablers of change and renewal for recovering drug dependents. Oftentimes,
they only comply with the requirements of CADAC (City Anti-Drug Abuse Council) particularly
on the counting and profiling aspects but they don’t have specific commitments or targets to
accomplish as far as community drug rehabilitation is concerned.”

The problem raised by VSRP10 calls for an institutionalized approach to streamlining our
efforts, time and other resources that must gravitate towards commitment and sustainability.
Institutional approaches that are governmental in nature are often positivist and utilitarian in
nature (Fajardo, 2014; Renwick, 2011). They only take into consideration whatever they can afford
to count and they will decide based on the numbers. Whatever is hidden, silenced and “othered” is
not included in the policy discourse (Bacchi, 2010; Gascon & McIntyre-Mills, 2018; McEwan, 2009).
USeP SKP2 is a platform for rights-based approach in delivering community drug rehabilitation
program.

Solutions to issues and concerns confronted by trainees while attending the training

Table 3 presents the proposed solutions to issues and concerns confronted by trainees while
attending the training. These proposed solutions were derived from our meetings with the USeP
SKP2 Project Leaders and from focus group discussions with VSRPs and some representatives
of the family members.

These proposed solutions are both immediate and long range. We tried to be more strategic
in our approach rather doing quick fixes that are nevertheless temporary in nature. With the
immediate concern for livelihood, employment, food and cash income, our solution can initially
be dole out in some sense because we would like to tap the resources available in some business
groups in Davao City to pool for us food items such as rice and canned goods which can be best
distributed after attendance of skills trainings of our VSRPs. We have already tried it but the
support of our business partners is wavering and intermittent. As a government institution, USeP
is prohibited, by law, to receive donations from the business group or from the general public.
We are currently looking for a committed partner organization to serve this purpose for USeP
SKP2.

10
 Table 3. Proposed Solutions to Problems Raised

Issues Proposed Solutions

Based on strategic gender needs:

1. Lack of income to sustain basic needs. a) provide more trainings targeting life and social
skills for both men and women.
2. Experience of hunger. b) organize the training completers into specific
core competencies for them to access the
Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) of DSWD.
Under SLP, each bona fide member gets to
receive a start-up capital contributing towards
the group capitalization of any business or
enterprise of his or her choice.
c) tap other organizations that will take care of
providing more employment opportunities for
our VSRPs and their families.
d) train our VSRPs and families on urban
gardening so they can help themselves
become better food producers.

3. Lack of support from the local a) orient LGU officials on the community drug
government (eg. transportation). rehabilitation program of the government and
USeP SKP2.
b) conduct LGU-based action planning for
community drug rehabilitation program.
c) organize and strengthen leadership and
decision-making capabilities of BADAC
(Barangay Anti-Drug Abuse Council).
d) improve the USeP SKP2 promotional campaign
strategies at the LGU level by providing them
more IEC materials and by conducting anti-
drug symposia so that more people would
be more knowledgeable and involved in our
efforts in community drug rehabilitation.
e) Help LGUs come up with ordinances towards
better community drug rehabilitation.

Source: Key informant interview and focus group discussion conducted in September 2018 to July 2019.

11
 Conclusion

USeP SKP2 helps in rebuilding the lives of our VSRPs and their families by strengthening
social connections through our technical skills and other trainings. Our commitment is to
enhance the basic life capabilities of our VSRPs and their families so that they would be able to
integrate well into their social systems. When they have integrated, it means that they will have
improved self-worth and self-trust to take on new roles such as being able to work in groups or
organizations.

Organizing our VSRPs and families for community enterprise after their trainings
require that we work collaboratively with the church, various regional government and business
organizations. There are limitations of each partner in the USeP SKP2 platform that needs to
be identified and addressed so that we are better able to respond to the needs, issues and
concerns of our VSRPs and their families. Our job is facilitating adult learning so that everyone
of us in the platform benefits from our individual and group experiences.

References

Bacchi, C. (2010). Policy and discourse: challenging the construction of affirmative

action as preferential treatment. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(1), 128-146
doi:10.1080/1350176042000164334

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. New York: Longman.

Chambers, R. (1995). Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? Environment and Urbanization,
7(1), 173-204.

Dizon, N. (2016). Reformed drug users to become bet takers? Inquirer.net. Retrieved from http://
newsinfo.inquirer.net/824765/reformed-drug-users-to-become-bet-takers

Fajardo, F. J. P. (2014). A Hunger for Power and a Thirst for Wealth: Establishing a Link Between
Early Political Corruption and the Pork Barrel System. Journal of South Asian Studies, 2(1).

Farthing, R. (2014). School, Poverty and Hunger in the UK. In L. Pe Symaco (Ed.), Education, Poverty,
Malnutrition and Famine : Education as a Humanitarian Response (1 ed., pp. 137-156).
London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Gascon, M. (2017). Empowering Indigenous People to Actualise their Voice, Choice and Agency
in Rural Development Planning in Mindanao. In J. McIntyre-Mills & Y. Cocoran Nantes
(Eds.), Contemporary Systems Thinking: Balancing Individualism and Collectivism to
Support Social and Environmental Justice (Vol. 1). New York: Springer

12
 Gascon, M., & McIntyre-Mills, J. (2018). Empowering Indigenous People: Voice, Choice and Agency
in Rural Development Planning in Mindanao. In J. McIntyre-Mills, N. Romm, & Y. Corcoran-
Nantes (Eds.), Balancing Individualism and Collectivism: Social and Environmental Justice
(pp. 319-386). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Gascon, M., & Ortiz, G. F. (2019). Rebuilding the Lives of Former Drug Dependents in Davao City
through the Sagop Kinabuhi Program 2. ISoutheastern Philippines Journal of Research
and Development, 24(1).

Hari, J. (2019). Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong.

McEwan, C. (2009). Postcolonialism and Development. Canada: Routledge.

McIntyre, J. (2002). Critical Systemic Praxis for Social and Environmental Justice: A Case Study
of Management, Governance, and Policy. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(1),
3-35. doi:10.1023/A:1014237603948

Moser, C. (2003). Gender Planning and Development : Theory, Practice and Training.

Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. London: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Panhwar, F. (2001). Trade and hunger: The impact of trade liberalisation on small farmers. Leisa
Magazine.

Philippine Star. (2017). Drug war surrenderers breach 1M mark. Philippine Star. Retrieved from
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/01/01/1658665/drug-war-surrenderers-
breach-1m-mark

Putnam, R., & Goss, K. (2002). Introduction. In R. D. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution
of Social Capital in Contemporary Society (pp. 3-20). New York: Oxford University Press.

Renwick, N. (2011). Millennium Development Goal 1: poverty, hunger and decent work in Southeast
Asia. Third World Quarterly, 32(1), 65-89. doi:10.1080/01436597.2011.543814

Sallaverria, L. (2016). More than 1 million drug users, pushers have surrendered, says Palace.
Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. India: The Knopt.

Shiva, V. (2001). The real reasons for hunger.

Shiva, V. (2015). The Vandana Shiva reader. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.

13
 Acknowlegement

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding and administrative support of the
University of Southeastern Philippines to USeP SKP2 through its University President, Dr. Lourdes
C. Generalao and the support of other project leaders, namely Dr. Rosfe Corlae D. Badoy and
Assoc. Prof. Gladys Florangel I. Ortiz.

Series Writers

Dr. Mervin G. Gascon

Extension Director
University of Southeastern Philippines
Davao City

Dr. Danilo B. Pacoy

Vice President for Research, Development and Extension
University of Southeastern Philippines
Davao City

Dr. Orvil M. Basug

Extension Head, College of Engineering
University of Southeastern Philippines
Davao City

14
 PARTNERS

extension@usep.edu.ph
facebook..com/USePExtensionDivision