Case Study - Philippines Metagora Pilot Project

CHAPTER 4: TRAINING FOR FIELD OPERATIONS

In order to ensure quality results from the pilot survey, it is important that all personnel involved in the survey undergo training on the concepts and definitions used in the survey, the procedures used in implementing the questionnaires and other forms, and the procedures of enumeration. The training is a way to ensure that correct and uniform procedures will be adopted in the survey operation.

The training programme for the Metagora Project “2005 Pilot Survey on the Diagnosis of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Ancestral Domains in the Philippines” involved training of personnel involved in the survey operations. For this survey, two levels of training were conducted, namely the Trainers’ Training (Level I) and Interviewers’ Training (Level II).

4.1 LEVEL I – TRAINERS’ TRAINING

4.1.1 Objective of the Trainers’ Training

The trainers’ training was a two-day training of trainers conducted at the Sea and Sky Hotel, San Fernando City, La Union from 23 to 24 February 2005. The training prepared trainers in conducting training for the enumerators. The concepts, definitions, and procedures to be used in the survey were taught and discussed, first with the prospective trainers, so that the correct procedures would be properly disseminated to the enumerators.

4.1.2 Trainers and Participants

The participants of the first-level training were the NSO Central Office Metagora project staff, the Regional Directors (RDs), Provincial Statistics Officers (PSOs), and their respective assistants of the provinces of Aurora, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Ilocos Sur and Benguet. The participants of the first-level training were tasked to train the interviewers during the second-level training. Representatives from the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP), National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) were the trainers at this level.

Aside from the NSO personnel, representatives from the Region I CHRP and NCIP Offices also attended the first-level training.

Some 29 trainees participated in the first-level training. The number of participants by agency is presented below.

 

Number of Participants who Attended the Trainers’ Training by Agency
Agency	No. of Participants		Agency	No. of Participants
Total Participants	29
NSO - Central Office	3		NSO - Quirino Provincial Office	2
NSO - Cordillera Administrative Region	2		NSO - Region 3	1
NSO - Benguet Provincial Office	2		NSO - Aurora Provincial Office	2
NSO - Region 1	2		CHRP - Central Office	1
NSO - Ilocos Sur Provincial Office	2		CHRP - Region 1	4
NSO - Region 2	2		NSCB - Central Office	2
NSO - Nueva Vizcaya Provincial Office	2		NCIP - Region 1	2

 
4.1.3 Training Schedule of the Trainers’ Training

The Trainers’ Training proceeded followed the schedule below:

Date/Day/Time	Activity/Topic	Resoure Person/Trainer
Day 1: February 23, 2005
8:30 – 9:00	Registration
9:00 – 9:05	Invocation	Magdalena C. Bautista Provincial Statistics Officer, NSO Quirino
9:05 – 9:15	Welcome Remarks and Introduction of Participants	Mr. Alfredo D. Batoy Regional Director, NSO-Region I
9:15 – 9:30	Overview of the First-level Training	Ms. Paula Monina G. Collado Deputy Administrator, NSO
9:30 – 10:00	Overview of the Metagora Project	Prof. Rosario D. Jimenez, Metagora project Researcher, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
10:00 – 10:30	Overview on CHRP and Human Rights	Atty. Edgardo C. Diansuy, Director, NGO and Media Cooperation Office, CHRP
10:30 – 11:00	Break
11:00 – 12:00	Overview on the Rights of IPs	Mr. Felinor Sajonia Chief, Technical Management Services Division, NCIP
12:00	Lunch Break
1:30 – 2:00	Objectives of the Survey Confidentiality of Information Survey Design Survey Organisation and Operations	Ms. Fe Vida N. Dy-Liacco SCO VI, NSCB
2:00 – 3:00	Conducting an Interview General Procedures for Completing the Questionnaire	Ms. Fe Vida N. Dy-Liacco SCO VI, NSCB
3:00 – 3:30	Break
3:30 – 4:30	Instructions on How to Use the Questionnaire – Awareness and Perception	Ms. Margarita Salutan SCO VI, NSCB
4:30 – 5:00	Instructions on How to Use the Questionnaire – Realisation of the Rights of IPs	Ms. Margarita Salutan SCO VI, NSCB
Day 2: February 24, 2005
8:30 –8:35	Opening Prayer	Ms. Villafe P. Alibuyog OIC-PSO, NSO-Benguet
8:35 –10:00	Instructions on How to Use the Questionnaire - Violations of IPs’ Rights, Mechanisms for Grievance and Redress, Customary Laws and Practices	Ms. Margarita Salutan SCO VI, NSCB
10:00 –10:30	Break
10:30 – 12:00	Instructions on How to Use the Questionnaire – Mechanisms and Measures	Ms. Fe Vida N. Dy-Liacco SCO VI, NSCB
12:00	Lunch Break
1:30 – 4:30	Review of the Revised Questionnaire Based on the Comments and Suggestions of the Participants during the first-level training
4:30 – 5:00	Closing Remarks	Atty. Anita B. Chauhan Director, CHRP-Region 1

4.1.4 Training Method

Group or classroom training was applied for the first-level training. This method enables the trainer to receive constant feedback as to how well the trainees are learning; that, in turn, allows the trainer to clarify any confusion as it occurs. This is considered an effective method when many concepts and procedures must be learned and uniformity of training is desired.

The materials and equipment used in the training included:

1. Training kit –(bag, pencil, ball-point pen, notebook)

2. Interviewers’ Manual

3. Sample Questionnaire (PSDIPRAD Form 1)

4. Translated Questionnaires

5. Field Operations Guidelines

6. Supervisors’ Forms (PSDIPRAD Form 3 & 3A)

7. List of Sample Households (PSDIPRAD Form 4)

8. List of Replacement Households (PSDIPRAD Form 4A)

9. Presentation materials (PowerPoint)

10. Laptop/computer and LCD/overhead projector

11. Whiteboard/blackboard, sound system, eraser and marker/chalk

There were exchanges of views, questions and answers, and conciliation between the trainer and the trainees. Conflicting ideas were settled before moving to the next topic. The first-level training was not only the venue for learning the questionnaire and procedures for the survey but also for improving the instruments used for the survey, specifically the questionnaire and the Interviewers’ Manual. As the trainer explained the questions item by item, the trainees reacted when there were obvious inconsistencies in the questions or in the choices of answers. The critique of the questionnaire was encouraged since the use of quality survey instruments will result in an efficient survey operation as well as in the collection of accurate information.

Normally, in training for field operations like the one conducted for the Metagora Pilot Survey, the trainer is the major resource person to share knowledge. But with NSO personnel as trainees, critiquing of the questionnaire and instructions became part of the discussion. The NSO follows standard procedures in preparing survey questionnaires and in pretesting those before use in any field operations. While the NSO was consulted in the preparation of the questionnaires for the pilot survey, it was not responsible for finalisation. Most of the NSO staff involved in the Metagora Pilot Survey, as trainees, were used to conducting surveys and orienting interviewers on how to fill out a questionnaire. Further, the NSO staff raised questions related to the questionnaire format, sequencing/phrasing of questions, and the choices of answers (whether or not they were appropriate or logical). Hence, these inconsistencies or suggestions were raised during the training.

Thus, instead of a mock interview on Day 2, as initially planned, the revised questionnaire was presented for final review by the trainees. Given the changes to the questionnaire, the Interviewers’ Manual also needed to be revised to reflect the changes made in the questionnaire.

A meeting between NSO and Metagora project staff on the schedule and logistics of the project was held on Day 1. During the break on Day 2, the CHRP presided over a dialogue between LGU officials of Kibungan (Municipal Mayor, Councilor Bobby Wayan and ABC President) and the NSO on the issues of recruitment and payment of wages to local interviewers.

4.1.5 Comments/Issues/Concerns and Actions Taken in the Level I Training

Below is the summary of comments, issues and concerns raised and actions taken during the Level 1 training.

Issues and Comment	Actions Taken/To be Taken
1. It was noted that sample barangays selected by the NSCB included barangays that have no IPs. Hence, CHRP requested that the NSCB revise the sampling design so that only barangays with IPs will be covered by the survey.	For NSCB to include the barangays with IPs and drop those without IPs. The list of sample households and replacement households by barangay will be provided to the NSO/NCIP interviewers
2. If the respondent is not an IP, should we ask if any household members are IPs?	Yes.
3. There are no instructions for the questions that require multiple responses.	Such instructions will be included in the manual.
4. Is it necessary that the household head be the respondent?	No. Respondent can be any responsible IP who can provide accurate answers to the questions and who can give information for the household.
5. The socio-demographic profile should be printed in landscape in order to provide more space for the write-in answers.	Questionnaire to be revised as suggested.
6. In the Interview Status, the following choices should be deleted: refusal, temporarily away/not at home/on vacation, vacant, housing unit demolished, destroyed by fire, typhoon or other natural calamities. There is no need to include those categories of the interview status because the households with such status shall be replaced by another household and will not be covered in the survey. Hence, no questionnaire should be assigned to such households.	Corrections to be reflected in the questionnaire.
7. Include the definition of family in the definition of terms.	Noted.
8. The socio-demographic profile questionnaire can only list at most 10 household members. Additional copies of the socio-demographic profile questionnaire should be provided to the interviewers to be able to list household members exceeding 10 members.	Noted.
9. Revise the definition of migrant based on IPRA.	Noted.
10. There were suggested changes made for the questionnaire such as rephrasing/rewording of some question items, additions/revisions in the choices of answers, reformatting of the socio-demographic profile portion, changes in the pre-coded answers to facilitate administration and processing.	For NSCB to revise the questionnaire.

4.1.6 Outcome of Level I Training

With the full support of the partner agencies (CHRP, NSCB and NCIP), the NSO was able to organise the first-level training. Among the benefits:

1. Level I training was conducted as scheduled and smoothly despite the lack of funds available for the training.

2. Twenty-nine participants from the NSO, CHRP, NSCB and NCIP were trained on the Metagora Pilot Survey.

3. The following topics were taught and learned by the participants: overview of the Metagora project; classification of human rights; rights of IPs; definitions and concepts of the pilot survey; duties and responsibilities of enumerators, team supervisors and NSO field officers; procedures on how to conduct an interview; procedures on how to complete the questionnaires; and general rules and concepts on how to address problems during field enumeration.

4. Some LGU officials met with the Philippine Metagora project team to discuss their participation and administrative and financial matters.

5. The issues and concerns related to the survey were addressed accordingly.

6. The training also served as a way to improve the survey instruments and sampling method which, in turn, helped improve the survey operations and quality of data collected.

7. The different agencies involved in the survey were made aware of their roles in the training as well as in the field enumeration.

4.2 LEVEL II - TRAINING OF INTERVIEWERS

4.2.1 Objectives of the Interviewers’ Training

Training of interviewers is crucial to the success of survey operations. Through training, the enumerators are expected to learn the concepts used in the survey questionnaire and the procedures for obtaining quality data through interviews. It is expected that after the training, the enumerators are able to conduct the interview properly and address problems during field enumeration.

The Level II training, or Interviewers’ Training, was conducted during three days in selected training centres. The training was attended by the Team Supervisors (TS), Enumerators (ENs) and NCIP observers. The PSOs and respective assistants were the trainers for this level. The NSO-CO project staff and the RDs also assisted in the training. One representative each from CHRP and NCIP were also invited as resource persons to give an overview about the Metagora Project and the rights of IPs, respectively.

4.2.2 Training Method

Similar to the first-level training, the group or classroom training was adopted for Level II training.

Mock interviews, which are a crucial part of the training, were conducted in Level II training. The mock interviews served as a means to evaluate or gauge how well the trainer conducted the training and how well the trainees understood the lectures.

The materials used in the training include the following:

1. Training kit –(bag, pencil, ballpoint pen, notebook)

2. Interviewers’ Manual

3. Sample Questionnaire (PSDIPRAD Form 1)

4. Field Operations Guidelines

5. Supervisors’ Forms (PSDIPRAD Form 3 & 3A)

6. List of Sample Households (PSDIPRAD Form 4)

7. List of Replacement Households (PSDIPRAD Form 4A)

8. Area maps

9. Presentation materials (PowerPoint)

10. Laptop/computer and LCD/overhead projector

11. Whiteboard/blackboard, sound system, eraser and marker/chalk

4.2.3 Training Venues

The RDs and PSOs were tasked to identify and secure the venue of the Interviewers’ Training. The following were the basic requirements considered for selecting a training venue:

• Available facilities for board and lodging for the participants during the training period;

• Quiet and free from distractions;

• Good lighting and well-ventilated;

• White/black board;

• Tables and chairs; and

• Adequate in size to accommodate a class size of 25.

The training was a live-in training; hence, the availability of facilities for lodging was an important consideration in selecting a training venue.

4.2.4 Participants and Trainers

Below is a summary of the participants and trainers who attended the Level II training in four training centres.

Training	Date	Venue	No. of Participants	Trainers/Responsible Persons
CAR/ Benguet	8-10 March 2005	Agricultural Training Institute,BSU compound, La Trinidad, Benguet	Total = 38 NSO = 8 NCIP = 1 LGU representative = 1 CHRP = 2 NSO/NCIP ENs = 26	RD Olivia G. Gulla (NSO) OIC-Villafe P. Alibuyog (NSO) DSO Delano C. Bolislis (NSO) Atty. Russel Ma-ao (CHRP) Prof. Rosario Jimenez (CHRP) Mr. Recto Alawas (NCIP)
Region 1, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur	8-10 March 2005	Narvacan Tourism Lodge	Total = 24 NSO-CAR = 5 NSO-CO - 1 CHRP = 1 NCIP = 1 NSO/NCIP ENs = 16	RD Alfredo D. Batoy (NSO) PSO Urbana A. Romano (NSO) Mr. Mohammad I. Victor (NSO) Ms.Benita Hernandez (CHRP) Mr. Felinor Sajonia (NCIP)
Region 2, Nueva Vizcaya	8-10 March 2005	Villa Margarita Mountain Resort, Km. 260 Busilac, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya	Total = 36 NSO N. Vizcaya = 3 NSO-CO = 1 CHRP = 5 NCIP = 7 NSO/NCIP ENs = 12 NSO Aurora = 2 Aurora ENs = 6	OIC RD Matilde Alejandro (NSO) PSO Lauro T. Marquez (NSO) Ms. Cholly L. Bayon (NSO) DSO Julita Valdez (NSO) Atty. Anita Chauhan (CHRP) Mr. Arlene Ganal (CHRP) Mr. Bong Soriano (NCIP)
Region 2, Quirino	8-10 March 2005	Villa Caridad Hotel & Restaurant, Villa Hermosa Sur, Maddela, Quirino	Total = 32 NSO Quirino = 4 NSO-CO = 1 CHRP = 5 NCIP = 2 NSO/NCIP ENs =20	PSO Magdalena C. Bautista (NSO) DSO Julius Emperador (NSO) SCO Anna B. Dumangeng (NSO) SCO Dante Tacadena (NSO) Atty. Anita Chauhan (CHRP) Mr. Arlene Ganal (CHRP) Mr. Bong Soriano (NCIP) Mr. Victor Calingayan (NCIP)

4.2.5 Training Schedule

Training included the Interviewers’ Manual with the aim of teaching the Metagora Pilot Survey concepts and definitions, the content of the questionnaires/forms contents, field enumeration procedures, and procedures for completing the questionnaires/forms. The procedures for supervision were also examined since the participants in the training included the team supervisors and NSO field supervisors. Mock interviews were conducted as part of the training to determine whether the enumerators understood the lectures and to familiarise them with the questionnaire and practice the proper way of interviewing.

The detailed training schedule for the Interviewers’ Training is shown below:

Time	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3
8:30-9:00	Registration Opening Prayer Welcome Remarks	Instructions on How to Complete the Questionnaire Cover Page –Socio-demographic Profile	Briefing on Mock Interview
9:00-10:00	Overview of Metagora Project Classification of Human Rights		Mock Interview
10:00-12:00	Overview on the Rights of IPs Overview of AO 3, series of 2004 - Rights of IPs	Perceptions on and Awareness of the Rights of Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands Realisation of the Rights of IPs
12:00	Lunch Break	Lunch Break	Lunch Break
1:30-3:00	Survey Organisation	Duties and Obligations of IPs Violations of IPs
3:00-3:30	Break & Ice Breaker	Break & Ice Breaker	Debriefing of Mock Interview
3:30-5:00	Conducting an Interview How to Enumerate General Procedures for Completing the Questionnaire	Mechanism for Grievance and Redress Customary Laws and Practices Measures to Protect IPs’ Rights Remarks	Open Forum and Evaluation of the Training Allocation and Distribution of Survey Materials to ENs/TS
5:15- 6:00		Briefing on Re-interview and Spot-checking

4.2.6 Comments/Issues/Concerns and Actions Taken in the Level II Training

Below is the summary of comments, issues and concerns raised and actions taken during the Level II training.

Issues/Concerns/Comments	Action(s) Taken/To be Taken
1. Instruction about mapping was not included in the manual.	The NSO trainer presented the procedure on how to use the map based on the procedures they use when conducting a survey.
2. There was no copy of the translated “Kankanaey” dialect during the training.	Prof. Rosario Jimenez contacted the CHRP and the NCIP through cell phone to provide the revised copy to NSO before they left for the enumeration.
3. How will those on vacation be treated in the household roster?	For Column 2, under the Demographic profile, the 30-day rule shall be followed for members of the household who come home at least once a month, and the OCWs who are on vacation during the enumeration shall be included; exclude those who are out/absent due to work abroad during the enumeration.
4. Will a student who helps in farm chores on weekends be considered to have an occupation?	A full-time student who helps during Saturday and Sunday on the farm is considered to have a gainful occupation (Column 10).
5. For cases of a household member with multiple work activities, which activity will prevail?	Consider the following: permanency, time spent, and income, in that order.
6. To whom does nuclear family in Letter C refer?	The nuclear family in Letter C refers to the father, mother and unmarried children.
7. Items 14a or 14 b should be separated for special cases that both are reported but one item (14b) is not under customary laws.	To get the answers for both items, place the answer beside the square. This is following NSO survey procedure: when in doubt, include.
8. The TS aired their opinion as to the quota requirement of four households per EN per day, including the TS four re-interviews/spot-checks in Benguet, is difficult to accomplish considering the geography and location of households requiring long hikes to reach the barangay or the household sample area.	The RD/OIC-PSO instructed them to try and follow the quota and make a report as to the actual experiences during the enumeration relative to the distance of the samples, the respondents, etc.
9. The letter from CHRP informing the LGU about the conduct of the Metagora survey was not yet provided.	The co-project staff informed Ms. Ybanez about this matter. A copy of the letter was sent to NSO-Vigan via fax.
10. No translation of the questionnaire into local dialects (i.e. Ilocano, Bago).	The representative of NCIP translated the questionnaire into Ilocano dialect. CHRP will be sending the translation which is being printed.
11. There are questions where the answers have to be read out to the respondent but there are no instructions to do so in the manual. This created confusion among the trainees.	The choices of answers for the following questions will be read out to the respondent: Questions 18, 27, 28 and 30.
12. The choices of answers in Q. 29, as written in the questionnaire, look like they should be read out to the respondent.	Q.29 will be rephrased from “Aside from the government, do you usually go to for help regarding your land?" to “Aside from the government, where do you usually go to for help regarding your land?” The choices for this question are not to be read out.
13. Per initial query of the enumerators assigned to the local residents of Barangay Caoayan, Municipality of Sugpon, of the total sample of households listed in the PSDIPRAD Forms 4 and 4 A, only one household belongs to Bago Tribe, the other households are Kankanaeys.	As per the sampling design, households that have no Bago tribe member will not be interviewed. Instead, the enumerator will look for any households near the cluster area that have any member belonging to the Bago Tribe. If the said household is not found in the area, then the household listed in Form 4A will be interviewed even if they belong to the Kankanaey tribe. In this case, indicate on the questionnaire that the HH is Kankanaey and not Bago.
16. Five days of enumeration is not enough for the ENs to conduct the survey.	Five days is enough since the ENs are expected to stay in or are residents of the sample barangays where they are assigned to enumerate. However, if difficult terrain or bad weather is encountered, there are cases where the 5-day enumeration could be extended.
17. ENs expressed fears of being harassed while conducting the survey in the sample barangays (Dine, Kakiduguen) where the officials (e.g., barangay captain, municipal mayor) are both migrant IPs. The migrant IPs may feel threatened once the Bugkalots become aware of their rights related to ancestral domain and ancestral lands.	One of the participants is a Bugkalot Chieftain. He offered that he will be the one to talk to and coordinate with the Bugkalots in these sample areas and that the survey will be conducted outside these barangays.
18. The participants were able to identify that some of the listed sample households and their replacements were allegedly not Bugkalots.	As per instruction from the Metagora project coordinators, in the event the list of sample households and replacements become exhausted, or if the respondent is not qualified to be covered, the ENs can replace the sample households provided that they are replaced with Bugkalots.
19. The ENs asked for clarification as to who will sign the questionnaire once it is completed.	Any member of the Team can sign the questionnaire provided that he/she is the one who interviewed the respondent.
20. According to NCIP, qualification requirements of hiring SRs are too high, re: educational attainment – college graduate.	Per requirement, the educational qualification is college graduate, however, OIC-RD Alejandro reiterated that at least 2nd year college can be recruited and hired as ENs/SRs.
21. From the statement: B.2.7 “IPs access to water resources in their ancestral domains and ancestral lands is protected from encroachment and pollution.” It was asked what is being protected: the “access” or the “water resources”.	It was pointed out that what are being protected are actually the “water resources” and not the IPs’ “access” to water resources.
22. “No response” should be replaced with “No Comment,” since the responses "Yes," "No," and "Don’t Know" are signals to the enumerators to proceed to the next statement on the questionnaire.
23. From the Statement C.11, ”How long has your family lived here?”, choice No. 1, “31 and over/since time immemorial” is in conflict with the definition of family given in the manual (p.21), “In the following questions, the family refers to the nuclear family in the household.” The words “time immemorial” may be referring to grandparents or ancestors who do not fall within the nuclear family.	Redefine family to include extended family.
24. From the statement C.14 a & b, “Has there been a transfer of land or property rights: Among members of your community? Among non-members of your community?", the word IP should be indicated in the statement.
25. From the statement D. 15: “Aside from residential use, how is your family utilising your land? 1. Cultivation by self or family members; 2. Renting/leasing out to others," No. 5 choice: "Not Applicable (go to 17)" should be deleted from the choices.
26. A migrant bought, then occupied, a parcel of land in Ancestral Domains. Can that land be recovered by IPs?	According to Atty. Chauhan, IPs can recover the ancestral land.
The questionnaire still had some errors.

4.2.7 Outcome of the Level II Training

1. The training in four training centres was conducted as scheduled.

2. A total of 130 persons, including the resource speakers, trainers, enumerators, team supervisors and other guests attended the training.

3. The materials used for the training were given to the participants, except for the translated version of the questionnaire.

4. The participants were able to learn the following:
   • Overview of the Metagora Project;
   • Classification of human rights;
   • Rights of IPs;
   • Definitions and concepts of the pilot survey;
   • Duties and responsibilities of the enumerators, team supervisors and NSO field officers;
   • Procedures on how to conduct an interview;
   • Procedures on how to complete the questionnaires; and
   • General rules and concepts how to handle and address problems during field enumeration.

5. There were issues raised, but these were properly acted upon/addressed by the trainers/resource persons.

For further information, please refer to Appendix 4.1 of this Case Study.

Return to Case Study
top