CASE STUDY

SELF HELP GROUP

Unleashing Human Potential in the Road Less Travelled

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

Every human being has tremendous potential in himself/herself. This hidden potential in the poor can be unleashed if the right environment is provided SHeG cornerstone

Is Self-Help Group Approach effective as program/project component in the Diocesan Social Action Centers in journeying with the poor people of God towards a self-nourishing, selfgoverning, self-sustaining Basic Ecclessial Community/ies? Summary
Who : Where : When : What : Self-Help Groups (SHeG) Archdiocese of Lipa Site Visit (May 10-14, 2011) Self-Help Groups (SHeG) is an informal association of poor women in a community 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 as intruments 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

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 each other. 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 decisionmaking 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 decisionmakers 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.

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 remarkably successful 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 microenterprise 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 His preferential option for the poor, thus this case study of SHeG is conducted.

LASAC Champs in Transforming Communities using SHeG Approach (as of 2nd Quarter of 2010)
Description and Operation of the Program In 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.

Growth and Performance of SHeG in the Financial Aspect As 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 and PhP7,634,526.00 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 Implementation Date started : Data shown : # of SheGs formed : # of SHeG members : # of Cluster Level Association (CLA) formed : Availed Loan from PhP50.00- PhP21,000.00 : Total Fund PhP2,870,560.70 Total Loan Given Out PhP10,596,133.60 November 6, 2007 as of 2nd Quarter of 2010 60 groups 773 women 5 CLA (around 10 SheGs per CLA) 703 (91% of the total members) Total Repayment PhP7,634,526.00 Total Interest Earned 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 the mindsets, 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, the confidence as agent of change Long-range Social Impact: Basic needs are mostly meet. Members gradually participate in governance in their locality. Community experiences peace and order (lesser crime rates, juvenile delinquency, drug-related cases, etc).

 Sustainability: The project helps create social structures that respond the need of the poor 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. The philosophy 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 scam Lessons Learned The tremendous potential that lies dormant of every poor person can be unleashed to a very productive ends by organizing them and building their capacity. Each person especially the poor has extraordinary coping mechanism. Very often, the external development players undermine this strength; instead they offer quick solutions to 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 income generating activities by generating their own money through mutual contribution. Sustainable development has strong point in the internal initiatives rather than from the external sources where they can get money not from their own pockets. Communities re-establishing dying values of closely-knit practice.

Field Interviews conducted by NASSA and LASAC Director and his staff to consider its possibilities and effectiveness of SHeG Approach as 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 the interviewers 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.

Table 2. Field Interview Data

Name of SHeG/CLA SamaSamang Kababaihan SHeG Place (Sitio/Brgy) Matandang, Magahis, Magahis # of Members 13 (8 at the start) Date Financial Formed Status June 5, > LGO2010 P13,821.00 > MITBP11,910.00 Sharing Preparatory phase: > nagulat kasi bakit babae lahat > kung hindi galing simbahan, hindi ako magtitiwala kasi maraming ng hulogan na magbibigay kami ng pera para takasan lang. > may agam-agam factor kasi wala ngang binigay Loan Expenditures: > nangutang ng P2,000.00 na nakakatulong sa livelihood gaya ng pagtatanim ng tubo, pambayad ng labor > pambili ng gatas ng anak > pandagdag sa tindahan > gastusin ng bahay > ginamit sa pagpaayos ng bahay > ginawang capital sa bigasan > daily household expenditures Effect/Changes: > nakakalabas na ng bahay > makaligo na tuwing huwebes > noon, ang asawa ay palaging Remarks > no other micro-finance groups operating their community > they did fund raising, pa bingo which the prizes were all household items; and was participated from neighboring sitios/barangays > out of the 60 households, 25 are members (13 from the interviewed group, 12 from the other group) > they will still continue even if theres no facilitation from LASAC

nagrereklamo; ngayon ay magpaalala na sa meeting > may asawang nagdududa, ayaw nang utang pero ngayon palagi nang nagtatanong sa mga updates > hindi pressure sa pagbabayad, huloghulogan lang sa makakayang bayaran > nakapunta na sa stage, sasayaw at nagka-uniform pa > nakilala na po kami ng mayor namin, sinabihan pa kami na maganda ang grupo namin > masaya ang paluwagan Dreams/ Aspirations > sana madagdagan pa kami aabot ng 15. (13 presently) > skill training on manicure, candymaking, etc Preparatory phase: > saglit lang, nabuo kaagad > sasali pa rin kahit hindi galing sa simbahan, depende sa paliwanag Loan Expenditures: > pambili ng bigas > pambaon eskuyla ng mga bata > pambayad kuryente kasi

Riles SHeG

Dalima

20

Dec. 7, 2010

MITBP12,702.00

> reacted when LASAC said they would let go of them, yet they would still continue even w/o the help of LASAC

maputulan na > pambayad sa tubig, etc. > capital sa tindahan na maliit > bayad pangtuli > nagpamisa Effect/Changes: > may kaluwagan na ang buhay, madali nang makautang > hindi na kami uutang sa iba, kasi ang interest ay hindi mapunta sa amin , tapos obligado ka pang magbabayad > maraming natutunan > lingo-linggo magkikita > may bonding na > hindi na kokontra ang mga asawa, ayaw na nila sa micro-finance kasi sapilitan daw ang pagbabayad > may gusto pang sumali, tutulungan to make new group > ang mga lalaki ay gusto nang sumali Dreams/ Aspirations > magkaroon ng pangkabuhayan na pangmatagalan ***(sharing were gathered from the 5 groups) Preparatory phase: > may reaction talaga sa mga asawa Loan Expenditures: > the 5 groups have a total of P329Kplus in the MITB

Labanan ang Kahirapan SHeG (LAKAS) Cluster Level Asso (CLA) with 5 groups 1. Bayanihan SHeG

Tulos, Rosario

23

Apr 2010

MITBP100Kplus

2. Sariling Sikap SHeG 3. BUBIDIPA SHeG 4. Masagana SHeG 5. Pagkakaisa SHeG 21

Feb 26, 2010 Sept 26, 10 Oct 30, 10 Nov. 9, 10

MITB-P105,000 MITB-P42,709

MITB-P41Kplus

MITB-41Kplus

> nagpagawa ng terrace sa bahay > nagpagawa ng kulungan ng baboy > majority ay napunta sa pambaon at kagamitan sa school like papel, at tuition fees. > pang-ulam > pang negosyo, hihiram ng 2K lingolinggo > pambili ng bigas > pambayad ng kuryente Effect/Changes: > may malaking pagbabago sa komunidad. Nagkwentuhan pa rin pero may ginagawa na > takot mangutang pero ngayon nakapagpatayo na ng bahay dahil sa utang sa SHeG, panggamot, pahilot, etc. > malaking bagay ang nagawa ng SHeG sa buhay namin > noon palaging tagoan lang sa bahay, ngayon lagi nang may kumustahan, bawat isa ay excited na magkikita tuwing may meeting > noon ang some members ay nakikinig lang sa session, ngayon ay naka report na sa session (CLA)

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 Sept 15, 10 LGO- P26,636

Dreams/ Aspirations > na magkaroon ng pangkabuhayan talaga ***(sharing were gathered from the 5 groups) > pagawaan ng walis tambo sa Malvar SHeG

Preparatory phase: LGO-P44,239.75 > sindikato, iipunin lang ang yaman at kukunin ng project LGO-P14,633.50 officer > galing sa simbahan so makaLGO-P12,085 Dios LGO-P12,063 Loan Expenditures: > pambayad ng kuryente, hospital, eskuylahan > pambili ng gamit sa bahay gaya ng durabox, kaldero > pambili ng kabayo > pang negosyo > abono sa tubigan, pagkain ng baboy at baka Effect/Changes: > naisama kami sa awarding nang Adamson University na ini-award nila sa LASAC. > may savings na kami > pakikisama, pakikipag-alay kapwa > sama-sama sa papunta sa anumang okasyon > disiplina sa oras > natutong magkwenta, magdasal, mag

present > hindi magtatagal ang magka-alitan o may kagalit kasi takot ma-agenda > tumutulong sa gawaing barangay > kung may mamamatay, may damayan > may malaking pag- unawa sa kapwa ka grupo > nakilala na dahil sa participation sa barangay > ang tubo ay nasa kanila, hindi sa amin > dito sa amin transparent. Sa iba hindi alam ng ibang member na may nakautang na > sa iba ang collateral ay ang comembers, nakakasama ng loob kasi hindi naman ang umutang > kaunti pagkakamali, tulong-tulong talaga kami > lahat po ay pinuno, lahat po ay natuto kasi paikotpaikot po kami > mahiyain po kami noon, nangangatal po pero ngayon hindi na > nakadalas na umattend ng barangay > nagpagawa na po kami ng patubig > yon pong kalsada namin, pinagraba na po namin,

Catmon SHeG

14 Mar 6, (17 noon, 2009 with 21 household in their cmty.)

pinasemento po ang gilid > empowered na po kami kasi may pera na > dumami ang mga kaibigan Preparatory phase: -----Loan Expenditures: -----Effect/Changes: > may fiesta na sila dahil sa chapel na napatayo nila > kung may birthday, sa chapel na sila magdasal. Hindi na nadayo sa centro na may pamasahe na P100.00 > nakakatikim na ng misa > noon, nahirapan mag sign of the cross ang iba, ngayon hindi na > noon, walang pakialaman basta nasa bahay lang ang ugnayan > tuwing martes, ang P20 ay talagang hindi makalimutan > nakakatulong sa kapwa gaya nang wala pa lang bigas kaya ayon nangungutang na > kung aalis, alam na naming kung saan makakuha ng pamasahe Dreams/ Aspirations > magtatayo ng Day

> they built a chapel with an expenses of 32K plus (15K was from their SHeG money). The rest was solicited from the local resources like municipal mayor.

Pagkakaisa SHeG (the pioneers)

Biga, Bogo, Hugom, San Juan

20 (may umalis at bumalik) (6 at the start )

Nov. 6, 2007

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

Care Center (kasi pagod na ang mga bata sa kalalakad ng more than 2-3 hours) > need pangmatagalan na negosyo > may plano sa chapel na pakikinabangan sa lahat Preparatory phase: > mahirap ang magbuo dahil may karanasan na kami > may pagalinlangan kasi hindi naming kilala si Caloy >hindi agad ako sumali kasi inobserbahan ko muna > umalis kasi hindi pa namin alam ang takbo ng grupo > ang mga hindi sumali galit ang mga asawa Loan Expenditures: > nakakapangutang na, may sandalan na > gamot, sa hospitalization > natustusan na ang pangmatrikula > pambaon sa eskuylahan (majority) > pang dagdag sa negosyo kaya nang avon > bagong miembro na hindi pa nag 1 month, umutang na ipinadala sa

>40 (2 SHeG Pagkakaisa at Kaligayahan)) with 50 households > basta may laman ang box, ipapautang kahit sa may outstanding utang pa > no pressure in payment , hindi nagdududa > ipupursege pa ang MITB > negosyo konti lang, may hindi nag click > walang policy sa pagbabayad. Kung kailan lang gustong bumayad >P3,520 saving bawat isa > multa sa absent P10/P5 a day. Consecutive 4 days P100.00 > nakapagpatayo na ng Day Care Center > ayaw nang umutang sa iba (ex. LASAC)

probinsya > may umutang na P25K sa pagdadamit Effect/Changes: > noon kahit saan saan na lang mangungutang/ manghiram > noon P10/wk lang ang compulsory saving, ngayon P20/wk na > walang late (15 minutes palugit) kasi takot sa multa > may gumagaya na, nanganganak ang SHeG > sobra ang pagbabago. Noon, sa bahay lang talaga ngayon hindi na natatakot sa mga tao > malaki ang pakinabang ng barangay kasi tinutulungan namin sila > mapag-unawa (may umalis na nang matagal, nang bumalik tinanggap pa rin namin > may malaking pagbabago sa asawa at mga anak, may partnership na > may nakatapos na sa training ng manicure/pedicure, massage, 3rd year college na. Dreams/ Aspirations > bibili ng 2 computers sa Day

> 1ST project: Philhealth membership (munisipyo ang nagbabayad kasi pumunta sila doon for help)

Care Center > Ipapaayos ang kalsada Kaligayahan SHeG Biga, Bogo, Hugom, San Juan 20 > Iba-iba ang fixed savings kasi iba-iba ang antas ng pamumuhay (mostly are in the middle class) > created a committee (water system, skill training of out-of-schoolyouth, day care center) > plan to create Day Care Center (lot is donated) > they have discussed the put-up of water system in their sitios/brgys. (conducted surveys) > 25 youth will attend the training courses > day care center with expected 25 toddlers > fund raising: Halloween and caroling

Sulong Kababaihan CLA (the interviewers only observed/ listened to their meetings)

Kastilyo

1. Lucky SHeG

17

Feb 2010

IGP-P875 LGO327,803.00 (repaymentP323,061.00) I- P15,469.00 W-P90,000.00 E-P1,000.00 (punta ng Lipa for assembly) TF-P38,043.00 SV-P2,300.00 F-P485.00 LGO1,459,00.00 (repaymentP1,039,000.00) I- P4,200.00 (yearly is shared to the members during Christmas)

> may nag back-out kasi may baby pero may kapalit kaagad

2. Masaya SHeG

16

Dec 22, 2007

TF-P38,043.00 SV-P38,180 with extra savings P7,318.00 F-P724.00 MITBP57,940.75 D-P3,550 (natutuwa sa aming grupo)

3. Pinagpalad SHeG

20

Dec 16, 2007

MITBP67,456.50 LGO768,525.00 (repaymentP705,500.00) I- P59,183.00 W-P60,000.00 E-P8,688.00 (bahay pulungan) SV-P60,040.00 F-P1,004.00 D-P2,000.00 (xmas party and CLA)

4. Maganda SHeG (Class B) majority are teachers

20

Feb 14, 2010

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

> loan is at least P10,000.00 (mostly for tuition fees)

5. Pag-asa SHeG

14 (20, 6 back-out nanganganak

Jan 17, 2010

MITB-P17,200 I- P1,973.00 F-P305 LGO-P20,151.00 W-P33,583.00

6. Maligaya SHeG

Salimpusa

15

Feb. 22, 2010

FS-P15,720.00 SV-P3,147.00 LGO-P43,773.00 I- P12,707.00 W-P7,876 LGO-P60,000.00 (repayment P30,000.00)

7. Lucky 2

11

Jan 2, 2011

***

LGO Loan given out MITB- Money in the Box I- interest W- withdrawals E- expenses TF- total fund SV- special savings F- fines (absent, late) FS-fixed savings

Findings and Observations Generally, the presiders are equip in holding their meeting. Rotational leadership indeed helpful for the womens self-worth and self-confidence. Participative financial management is more responsive and efficient. There is indeed a flexible democratic system of working. Wearing uniform during the meeting and other events is a manifestation that their rules are observed. The members carried individual notebook that they readily used in note-taking (this is during their meeting). Loan is done mainly on trust with a bare documentation and without any security. The comradery is evident. Sharing of problems, concerns, experiences and aspirations are 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 members continues to grow. Generally, the selection of SheGs is indeed poorest among the poor. Pilot communities reveal that Archdiocese of Lipa 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 the members. 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 Study Group where continuing inputs and education is mandated to the group.

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 pastoral works 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.