CASE STUDY SHEG @ Archdiocese of Lipa

8/3/2019 CASE STUDY SHEG @ Archdiocese of Lipa

1/22

CASE STUDYSELF HELP GROUP

Unleashing Human Potential

in the Road Less Travelled

Is Self-Help Group Approach effective as program/project component in the Diocesan SocialAction Centers in journeying with the poor people of God towards a self-nourishing, self-governing, self-sustaining Basic Ecclessial Community/ies?


2/22

Is Self-Help Group Approach effective as program/project component in the Diocesan SocialAction Centers in journeying with the poor people of God towards a self-nourishing, self-governing, self-sustaining Basic Ecclessial Community/ies?Summary

Who : Self-Help Groups (SHeG)

Where : Archdiocese of Lipa

When : Site Visit (May 10-14, 2011)

What : Self-Help Groups (SHeG) is an informal association ofpoor women in acommunity usually composed of 15-20 members voluntarily coming

together to make small regular savings contributions over a few

months until there is enough capital in the group to begin lending.

Funds are lent back to the members to meet their emergency needs on

the basis of mutual help.

SHeG is generally has broad anti-poverty agendas. SheGs are seen asintruments for a variety of goals including empowering women,

developing leadership abilities, economic and social development such

as micro-enterpreneurship, increasing school enrollments, improving

houses, linking partnerships and building strong communities.

As an individual, the poor are voiceless,

powerless and vulnerable. By bringing them

together as a homogenous collective, they have

tremendous strength- SHeG cornerstone

Every human being has tremendous potentialin himself/herself. This hidden potential inthe poor can be unleashed if the right

environment is provided SHeG cornerstone


3/22

Introduction

Self-Help Groups (SHeG), also known as mutual

help, mutual aid, or support groups, are groups of

poor women from the same socio-economic

background who provide mutual support for eachother. In a SHeG, the members pool in their

resources to become financially stable by taking

loans from the money collected by that group and by

making everybody of that group self-employed.

(Generally), the group members use collective wisdom

and peer pressure to ensure proper end-use of credit and

timely repayment.

Although financial intermediation is normally seen more as an entry point, SHeG share a

common objective of working together not only for their economic development but also take

account of their social growth and empowerment.

SHeG has proven helpful in liberating the likely capacity and

capabilityof the poor especially women who are deprived of choices,

rights, opportunities and are often recipients of discrimination,

disparity, domination, displacement and de-humanizaton. In the

credit scheme for women, it is almost negligible because of

certain misconception about the poor people that they need

loan at subsidized rates of interest on soft terms, they lack

skills, capacity to save, credit worthiness and therefore not

bankable. Nevertheless, the experiences of SheGs reveal that

rural poor are actually efficient managers of credit and finance.

The principle of generating their own funds from themselves

alone is the heart of the success.

SHeG in principle is more than building a platform for the poor

people to improve their economic situation. It goes beyond financial

stability. It is creating empowerment among women, promoting them

to move from positions of marginaliztion within household decision-

making process and exclusion within community, to one of greater

centrality, inclusion of voice. The social processes of SHeG reveal

and strengthen womens self-esteem and self-worth, instill a

greater sense of awareness of social and political issues leading to

increase mobility and reduce traditional seclusion of women. They

women become active partners of their husbands and active decision-

makers in their respective community.

In the Philippines today, there are numerous organizations promote and implement SHeG

model where some of them modify and alter some principles and methodologies. There are at least

16 organizations that faithfully acted in accordance with its concept, formation and management

that they called themselves promoters. (In the perspective of programs delivery, promoters are

implementors or facilitators of SHeG). Majority of the promoters are NGOs whose works focus on

community development in the marginalized sectors of our society.


4/22

Among the 16 promoters, Lipa Archiodesan Social Action Commission (LASAC) in the

Archdiocese of Lipa, Batangas embarked institutionalization of poorest women using SHeG approach

in 2007. In almost three years (based on the record LASAC submitted) of implementation, impressive

outputs are conspicuous in the pilot areas/communities where indications of improvement (pls. refer

to LASAC Champs in Transforming Communities using SHeG Approach for details) in all aspect of

human development are measurable. The LASAC performance through SHeG is remarkablysuccessful that produces many hows from the viewpoint of social action workers knowing that the

promoters are church-based which at all times grant financial assistance or provides micro-

enterprise development program to its pilot communities.

The road often travelled by the pastoral workers in journeying with the poor is closely

interlinked with the works of mercy, works of development and works of justice that are wrapped up

with monetary support. To replicate SHeG approach is a tough mission considering that the

supposed beneficiaries are not actually benefiary because not even a single cent, nor a one -piece

bondpaper, nor a single ballpen is given to them from the promoters.

But LASAC experience brings hope to those who would love to take the challenge in exploring

all the possibilities in unleashing the human potentials of Gods people in responds to Hispreferential option for the poor, thus this case study of SHeG is conducted.

LASAC Champs in Transforming Communities usingSHeG Approach(as of 2nd Quarter of 2010)

Description and Operation of the ProgramIn search of improving the community development programs in

targetting the poorest of the poor, LASAC came to know the Self-Help Approach

of Kindernothilfe in Germany and started to implement in 2007.

The very poor members of a community are organized to form SHeG.

The entire community played a role in selecting the poorest households among them using criteria

that they themselves develop aided by a facilitator. The numbers of members are 15-20 generally

homogeneous and bounded by affinity. This approach normally works with women.

Weekly meeting gives each member a new identity. The once voiceless, powerless and

isolated poor women appreciate the sense of belongingness, contrary to their daily experience of

feeling left alone. Openness among the members of the group is developed; sharing their problems

and discussing social issues in the community are commonly expressed. Trust and belongingness

are built. The process of social development is experienced among the members.

Weekly savings no matter how small it may be trigger the members to financial discipline.

Once they made commitment to save and start savings, they push themselves to work more and

raise more to keep faithful of their commitment. This unlocks the economic development process.

Capability building inputs such as leadership and facilitating skills are provided to the

individual members. The process of empowerment is gradual, yet it is noticeable.


5/22

Growth and Performance of SHeG in the Financial AspectAs of the 2nd quarter of 2010 (in its almost 3 years of implementation), there are 60 SheGs

formed with a total members of 773 women in the Municipalities of San Juan and Lobo. A total fund

of PhP2,870,560.70 is generated where 703 (91%) of the members availed loan from PhP50.00 to

PhP21,000.00. The total loan given out and total repayment is PhP10,596,133.60 andPhP7,634,526.00 respectively. The total interest earned is PhP611,826.70. Loans are used by the

borrowers as capital for small business, house consumptions, schools needs of children and

emergencies.

To illustrate clearly the numerical data, table 1 is shown below:

Table 1: SHeG Approach to women groups in almost 3 years of ImplementationDate started : November 6, 2007

Data shown : as of 2nd Quarter of 2010

# of SheGs formed : 60 groups

# of SHeG members : 773 women

# of Cluster Level Association(CLA) formed : 5 CLA (around 10 SheGs per CLA)

Availed Loan

from PhP50.00- PhP21,000.00 : 703 (91% of the total members)

Total Fund Total Loan Given Out Total Repayment Total Interest EarnedPhP2,870,560.70 PhP10,596,133.60 PhP7,634,526.00 PhP611,826.70.

Outputs/Results/Impacts of the Program

Collaboration: Linkages, cooperation and coordination among stakeholders (LASAC),LGUs and NGOs, SHeG members are built and strengthened that contributes to the

development of the program.

Cultural Impact: There is evidence of change in themindsets, attitudes and behavior of persons

in the community (especially the SHeG

members) such as the spirit of

volunteerism, from just being recipients to

being givers, thinking more of others than

of their own, clearer visions of their values,

boosting self-confidence of their potentials

and their significant contribution to the

project and to their communities,

awareness of their rights and duties, theconfidence as agent of change

Long-range Social Impact: Basic needs are mostlymeet. Members gradually participate in governance in their locality. Community

experiences peace and order (lesser crime rates, juvenile delinquency, drug-related

cases, etc).


6/22

Sustainability: The project helps create social structures that respond the need of thepoor like employment, education, housing, availability of safe and clean water, sufficient

food, on-going local leadership and more.

Innovation: The project has brought about significant social change of transforming traditional ineffective practice to the development of a pattern-changing idea and its

successful implementation. SHeG is new and effective. It is a creative way of partnering

with the poor where new programs strengthen human and spiritual values, uplift moral

standards of living in the community, promote good governance, and recognize by

different GAs, NGOs, other institutions, international bodies as outstanding projects for

poverty alleviation.

Replicability: The project can be adapted to solve similar problems in other places. Thephilosophy and spirituality that strength the project, the strategies that it employ, and the

techniques that it implement can be applied in any marginalized communities in the

country.

Problems Encountered Presence of micro-finance in the community where recruiting members is hard to

convince since they still inculcate the system of micro-financing from the outside

financers/banks

Bad experience of some communities in financing scamLessons Learned

The tremendous potential that lies dormant of every poor person can be unleashed to avery productive ends by organizing them and building their capacity.

Each person especially the poor has extraordinary coping mechanism. Very often, theexternal development players undermine this strength; instead they offer quick solutionsto the problems which also have quick end. The wisdom and strength of poor people is

their big asset. Savor their gifts.

The poor women can perpetuate the culture of saving and invest viable incomegenerating activities by generating their own money through mutual contribution.

Sustainable development has strong point in the internal initiatives rather than from theexternal sources where they can get money not from their own pockets.

Communities re-establishing dying values of closely-knit practice.


7/22

Field Interviews conducted by NASSA and LASAC Director and his

staff to consider its possibilities and effectiveness of SHeG Approachas project component in delivering programs

and services to other Diocesan Social Action

Centers

The hows, the whys and the wows of SheGs success

implemented/facilitated by LASAC is the turning point why this

case study is conducted. One highlight question that pushes such

study is Can other DSACs do it too? As workable and as effective

like LASAC?.

Last May 10-14, 2011, one staff from NASSA together with

LASAC Director and Staff conducted the field interview randomly

at the pilot communities. Most of the interviews carried out are at

the place far-flung from the town or at the city that theinterviewers had to walk 3-4 hours to reach the area. Some roads

travelled are hilly and elevated. Delayed meals are experienced.

Six (6) major components are gathered from the

respondents (the SHeG mambers) that are shown below in Table

2. Remarks are added as some sort of findings and observation

from the sharing expresssed by the respondents.

In the sharing part, translation to English is avoided to

retain the originality of the words articulated by the respondents.

Fifteen (15 ) SheGs were interviewed, including the 5

SheGs of LAKAS Cluster Level Association (CLA). One (1) CLA

with 5 SheGs members conducted their monthly meeting so the

interviewers only observed the process. Although some

clarifications and questions are raised during the meeting.


8/22

Table 2. Field Interview Data

Name ofSHeG/CLA

Place(Sitio/Brgy)

# ofMembers

DateFormed

FinancialStatus

Sharing Remarks

Sama-SamangKababaihanSHeG

Matandang,Magahis,Magahis

13(8 at the

start)

June 5,2010

> LGO-P13,821.00> MITB-P11,910.00

Preparatoryphase:> nagulat kasi bakitbabae lahat> kung hindi galingsimbahan, hindi akomagtitiwala kasimaraming nghulogan namagbibigay kami ngpera para takasanlang.> may agam-agamfactor kasi walangang binigay

LoanExpenditures:> nangutang ngP2,000.00 nanakakatulong salivelihood gaya ngpagtatanim ng tubo,pambayad ng labor

> pambili ng gatasng anak> pandagdag satindahan> gastusin ng bahay> ginamit sapagpaayos ngbahay> ginawang capitalsa bigasan> daily householdexpenditures

Effect/Changes:> nakakalabas nang bahay> makaligo natuwing huwebes> noon, ang asawaay palaging

> no othermicro-financegroupsoperating theircommunity> they did fundraising, pabingo which theprizes were allhouseholditems; and wasparticipatedfromneighboringsitios/barangays> out of the 60households, 25are members(13 from theinterviewedgroup, 12 fromthe other group)> they will still

continue even iftheres nofacilitation fromLASAC


9/22

nagrereklamo;ngayon aymagpaalala na sameeting> may asawangnagdududa, ayaw

nang utang perongayon palagi nangnagtatanong samga updates> hindi pressure sapagbabayad, hulog-hulogan lang samakakayangbayaran> nakapunta na sastage, sasayaw atnagka-uniform pa

> nakilala na pokami ng mayornamin, sinabihan pakami na magandaang grupo namin> masaya angpaluwagan

Dreams/Aspirations> sanamadagdagan pa

kami aabot ng 15.(13 presently)> skill training onmanicure, candy-making, etc

Riles SHeG Dalima 20 Dec. 7,2010

MITB-P12,702.00

Preparatoryphase:> saglit lang, nabuokaagad> sasali pa rin kahithindi galing sasimbahan, depende

sa paliwanag

LoanExpenditures:> pambili ng bigas> pambaon eskuylang mga bata> pambayadkuryente kasi

> reacted whenLASAC saidthey would letgo of them, yetthey would stillcontinue evenw/o the help of

LASAC


10/22

maputulan na> pambayad satubig, etc.> capital satindahan na maliit> bayad pangtuli

> nagpamisa

Effect/Changes:> may kaluwaganna ang buhay,madali nangmakautang> hindi na kamiuutang sa iba, kasiang interest ay hindimapunta sa amin ,tapos obligado ka

pang magbabayad> maramingnatutunan> lingo-linggomagkikita> may bonding na> hindi na kokontraang mga asawa,ayaw na nila samicro-finance kasisapilitan daw angpagbabayad

> may gusto pangsumali, tutulunganto make new group> ang mga lalaki aygusto nang sumaliDreams/Aspirations> magkaroon ngpangkabuhayan napangmatagalan

Labanan angKahirapan

SHeG(LAKAS)Cluster Level

Asso (CLA)with 5 groups

1. BayanihanSHeG

Tulos,Rosario

23 Apr2010

MITB-P100Kplus

***(sharing weregathered from the 5

groups)

Preparatoryphase:> may reactiontalaga sa mgaasawaLoanExpenditures:

> the 5 groupshave a total ofP329Kplus inthe MITB


11/22

2. SarilingSikap SHeG

3. BUBIDIPASHeG

4. MasaganaSHeG

5.PagkakaisaSHeG

21

Feb 26,2010

Sept26, 10

Oct 30,10

Nov. 9,10

MITB-P105,000

MITB-P42,709

MITB-P41Kplus

MITB-41Kplus

> nagpagawa ngterrace sa bahay> nagpagawa ngkulungan ng baboy> majority aynapunta sa

pambaon atkagamitan saschool like papel, attuition fees.> pang-ulam> pang negosyo,hihiram ng 2K lingo-linggo> pambili ng bigas> pambayad ngkuryente

Effect/Changes:> may malakingpagbabago sakomunidad.Nagkwentuhan parin pero mayginagawa na> takot mangutangpero ngayonnakapagpatayo nang bahay dahil sautang sa SHeG,

panggamot, pahilot,etc.> malaking bagayang nagawa ngSHeG sa buhaynamin> noon palagingtagoan lang sabahay, ngayon laginang maykumustahan, bawatisa ay excited na

magkikita tuwingmay meeting> noon ang somemembers aynakikinig lang sasession, ngayon aynaka report na sasession (CLA)


12/22

Dreams/Aspirations> na magkaroon ngpangkabuhayantalaga

Apar

1.Pinagmunaan

2. Kalingag

3. Anos

4. Muna

5. Malvar

Kalingag,

Apar, Lobo

13

19

11

10

12

Jan 27,10

Apr 27,10

July 18,10

Sept 8,

10

Sept15, 10

LGO- P26,636

LGO-P44,239.75

LGO-P14,633.50

LGO-P12,085

LGO-P12,063

***(sharing were

gathered from the 5groups)

Preparatoryphase:> sindikato, iipuninlang ang yaman atkukunin ng projectofficer> galing sasimbahan so maka-Dios

LoanExpenditures:> pambayad ngkuryente, hospital,eskuylahan> pambili ng gamitsa bahay gaya ngdurabox, kaldero> pambili ng kabayo> pang negosyo> abono sa tubigan,

pagkain ng baboy atbaka

Effect/Changes:> naisama kami saawarding nang

Adamson Universityna ini-award nila saLASAC.> may savings nakami> pakikisama,

pakikipag-alaykapwa> sama-sama sapapunta saanumang okasyon> disiplina sa oras> natutongmagkwenta,magdasal, mag

> pagawaan ngwalis tambo saMalvar SHeG


13/22

present

> hindi magtatagalang magka-alitan omay kagalit kasitakot ma-agenda> tumutulong sa

gawaing barangay> kung maymamamatay, maydamayan> may malakingpag- unawa sakapwa ka grupo> nakilala na dahilsa participation sabarangay> ang tubo ay nasakanila, hindi sa

amin> dito sa amintransparent. Sa ibahindi alam ng ibangmember na maynakautang na> sa iba angcollateral ay ang co-members,nakakasama ngloob kasi hindinaman ang

umutang> kauntipagkakamali,tulong-tulong talagakami> lahat po aypinuno, lahat po aynatuto kasi paikot-paikot po kami> mahiyain po kaminoon, nangangatalpo pero ngayon

hindi na> nakadalas naumattend ngbarangay> nagpagawa na pokami ng patubig> yon pong kalsadanamin, pinagrabana po namin,


14/22

pinasemento poang gilid> empowered na pokami kasi may perana> dumami ang mga

kaibiganCatmonSHeG

14(17 noon,with 21

householdin theircmty.)

Mar 6,2009

Preparatoryphase:

------LoanExpenditures:

------Effect/Changes:> may fiesta na siladahil sa chapel nanapatayo nila> kung may

birthday, sa chapelna sila magdasal.Hindi na nadayo sacentro na maypamasahe naP100.00> nakakatikim na ngmisa> noon, nahirapanmag sign of thecross ang iba,ngayon hindi na

> noon, walangpakialaman bastanasa bahay langang ugnayan> tuwing martes,ang P20 aytalagang hindimakalimutan> nakakatulong sakapwa gaya nangwala pa lang bigaskaya ayon

nangungutang na> kung aalis, alamna naming kungsaan makakuha ngpamasahe

Dreams/Aspirations> magtatayo ng Day

> they built achapel with anexpenses of32K plus (15Kwas from theirSHeG money).The rest wassolicited fromthe localresources likemunicipal

mayor.


15/22

Care Center (kasipagod na ang mgabata sa kalalakadng more than 2-3hours)> need

pangmatagalan nanegosyo> may plano sachapel napakikinabangan salahat

PagkakaisaSHeG(thepioneers)

Biga, Bogo,Hugom, SanJuan

20(may

umalis atbumalik)

(6 at the

start )

Nov. 6,2007

MITB-P200.00LGO-1.5M(repayment 1.3)

Preparatoryphase:> mahirap angmagbuo dahil maykaranasan na kami> may pag-

alinlangan kasi hindinaming kilala siCaloy>hindi agad akosumali kasiinobserbahan komuna> umalis kasi hindipa namin alam angtakbo ng grupo> ang mga hindisumali galit ang

mga asawa

LoanExpenditures:> nakakapangutangna, may sandalanna> gamot, sahospitalization> natustusan naang pangmatrikula> pambaon sa

eskuylahan(majority)> pang dagdag sanegosyo kaya nangavon> bagong miembrona hindi pa nag 1month, umutang naipinadala sa

>40 (2 SHeGPagkakaisa atKaligayahan))with 50households

> basta maylaman ang box,ipapautangkahit sa mayoutstandingutang pa> no pressure inpayment , hindinagdududa> ipupursege paang MITB> negosyo konti

lang, may hindinag click> walang policysa pagbabayad.Kung kailanlang gustongbumayad>P3,520 savingbawat isa> multa saabsent P10/P5a day.

Consecutive 4days P100.00>nakapagpatayona ng Day CareCenter> ayaw nangumutang sa iba(ex. LASAC)


16/22

probinsya> may umutang naP25K sapagdadamit

Effect/Changes:> noon kahit saansaan na langmangungutang/manghiram> noon P10/wk langang compulsorysaving, ngayonP20/wk na> walang late (15minutes palugit)kasi takot sa multa

> may gumagayana, nanganganakang SHeG> sobra angpagbabago. Noon,sa bahay langtalaga ngayon hindina natatakot samga tao> malaki angpakinabang ngbarangay kasi

tinutulungan naminsila> mapag-unawa(may umalis nanang matagal, nangbumalik tinanggappa rin namin> may malakingpagbabago saasawa at mga anak,may partnership na> may nakatapos na

sa training ngmanicure/pedicure,massage, 3rd yearcollege na.

Dreams/Aspirations> bibili ng 2computers sa Day

> 1ST project:Philhealthmembership(munisipyo angnagbabayadkasi pumunta

sila doon forhelp)


17/22

Care Center> Ipapaayos angkalsada

Kaligayahan

SHeG

Biga, Bogo,

Hugom, SanJuan

20 > Iba-iba ang

fixed savingskasi iba-iba angantas ngpamumuhay(mostly are inthe middleclass)

SulongKababaihanCLA

(theinterviewersonlyobserved/listened totheirmeetings)

1. LuckySHeG

2. MasayaSHeG

Kastilyo

17

16

Feb2010

Dec 22,2007

IGP-P875LGO-

327,803.00(repayment-P323,061.00)I- P15,469.00W-P90,000.00E-P1,000.00(punta ng Lipafor assembly)TF-P38,043.00SV-P2,300.00F-P485.00

LGO-1,459,00.00(repayment-P1,039,000.00)I- P4,200.00(yearly is sharedto the membersduringChristmas)

> may nag back-outkasi may baby pero

may kapalit kaagad

> created acommittee(water system,skill training of

out-of-school-youth, day carecenter)> plan to createDay CareCenter (lot isdonated)> they havediscussed theput-up of watersystem in theirsitios/brgys.

(conductedsurveys)> 25 youth willattend thetraining courses> day carecenter withexpected 25toddlers> fund raising:Halloween andcaroling


18/22

3. PinagpaladSHeG

4. MagandaSHeG

(Class B)majority

areteachers

5. Pag-asaSHeG

20

20

14(20, 6

back-outnanga-nganak

Dec 16,2007

Feb 14,2010

Jan 17,2010

TF-P38,043.00SV-P38,180 withextra savingsP7,318.00F-P724.00MITB-

P57,940.75D-P3,550(natutuwa saaming grupo)

MITB-P67,456.50LGO-768,525.00(repayment-

P705,500.00)I- P59,183.00W-P60,000.00E-P8,688.00(bahaypulungan)SV-P60,040.00F-P1,004.00D-P2,000.00 (x-mas party andCLA)

SV-P2,000.00S-P126,000.00I- P24,900.00Investment 3heads baka(P60,000.00)

MITB-P17,200I- P1,973.00F-P305LGO-P20,151.00W-P33,583.00

> loan is atleastP10,000.00(mostly fortuition fees)


19/22

6. MaligayaSHeG

7. Lucky 2

Salimpusa 15

11

Feb.22,2010

Jan 2,2011

FS-P15,720.00SV-P3,147.00LGO-P43,773.00I- P12,707.00W-P7,876

LGO-P60,000.00(repaymentP30,000.00)

*** LGO Loan given outMITB- Money in the BoxI- interestW- withdrawalsE- expenses

TF- total fundSV- special savingsF- fines (absent, late)FS-fixed savings


20/22

Findings and Observations

Generally, the presiders are equip in holding their meeting. Rotational leadership indeedhelpful for the womens self-worth and self-confidence. Participative financial

management is more responsive and efficient. There is indeed a flexible democraticsystem of working.

Wearing uniform during the meetingand other events is a manifestation that their rules are

observed.

The members carried individualnotebook that they readily used in note-taking (this is

during their meeting).

Loan is done mainly on trust with abare documentation and without any security.

The comradery is evident. Sharing of problems, concerns, experiences and aspirationsare openly expressed. Laughters and giggles are heard.

Visits of their community produce happy faces from the members. The SheGs interviewed are generally 100% in attendance. They are not used to serve snacks/meals (because of the principle that no food is to be

served fot he promoters/implementers). The presence of Fr. Jun Ramos was an

exception. However, few groups did the serving of food.

Social supports emerge especially from the LGUs. Sincere efforts to share the benefits of development to their communities is strong

(chapel construction, water supply, day care center, road construction)

Despite the long distance walking, the number of memberscontinues to grow.

Generally, the selection of SheGs is indeed poorestamong the poor.

Pilot communities reveal that Archdiocese ofLipa is not as rich as it is known. Poorest among

the poor are surviving in the very remote places.

The sustainability factor is developed among themembers. Confidently, they can continue the

operation without facilitation from the promoters.

Comments and Recommendations Majority of the SheGs have no stable income generating activities/livelihood. Most are

micro-business operated in the area. Most of their loans are expenditures.

There is a great need for livelihood skills training appropriate in the respective area. Poor need not only credit support, but also savings and other services. SheGs should in fact be modified to Self-Help StudyGroup where continuing inputs and

education is mandated to the group.


21/22

Conclusion

Self-Help supplemented with mutual help is certainly a powerful vehicle for the poor to be

liberated of all their potentials that are hidden within themselves due to poverty in almost every

aspect of their lives. SheGs is an inspiration to do better what we have done best in our pastoralworks through the years. It is an instrumental to motivate poor people of God to share what they can

offer to themselves for the common good of their lives and for their community. Self-sustained

growth is within reach as long as exact ingredients are carried out.

SHeG Approach is a paradigm shift of the Social Action if it is replicated. Challenges and risks

are inevitable, but evaluating its success to LASAC is a tempting stimulation that it maybe done to

other Dioceses as well. One success story is revealed, and there maybe more if one is brave enough

to take the calling. If it is effective to one Diocese, why not try it to others as well? Who knows.

Potential Discussion Questions

What are the possible implications and responses of the target groups in shifting strategy/ies

from the traditional dole out church to sariling sikap BECs?

How can we merge the existing micro-enterprise/micro-finance development program to SHeG

approach?

How would an increase SHeG formation impact to our church? What new challenges would likely

emerge?

If there is no fund available, how can we strategize SHeG Approach to become a program

component of our program deliveries?

This case study is an example of the challenges of sharing ones life (alay) to ones neighbors (kapwa) in the BEC through

SHeG model. This is written as a basis of discussions, learning and references - not as an illustration of either effective or

ineffective actions. The effectiveness depends on the viewpoint of the DSAC in their respective Diocese.


22/22

Documents

CASE STUDY SHEG @ Archdiocese of Lipa