Title

Abstract

Introduction

Rural economic inequality will decline if general frameworks for social protection,
development and skills, affordable healthcare, and facilities are well-developed. The provision of
high-quality shared extension services is one key strategy to address this particular issue (OECD,
2006; Agholor et al., 2013).

Saint Mary's University has already drafted its five-year development plan, which
commences in AY 2021-2022. Along with this is the adoption of communities, through the Lingkod
Maria Community Development and Advocacy Center (LMCDAC), for five years. The Background
Augmenting Stage allowed the communities to identify in August 2021 after informal interviews
with some parishes and alumni. Consultation and consensus-building meetings were subsequently
held with local officials and residents to obtain free prior and informed consent. The Memorandum
of Agreement signaled the beginning of a partnership between Saint Mary's University and the
communities.

Ipil Cuneg, located in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, is an adopted community under

consideration by Saint Mary's University through its Lingkod Maria Community Development and
Advocacy Center (LMCDAC). The community predominantly comprises Ilocanos and Ayangans,
representing a unique demographic composition.

Ipil Cuneg was chosen as one of the adopted communities for several reasons. Firstly,
providing extension services to indigenous communities, such as the Ayangan population in Ipil
Cuneg, holds significant importance. According to Anucha (2018), addressing indigenous
communities' specific needs and challenges is crucial for promoting inclusive and sustainable
development. By doing so, the LMCDAC can refine and formulate its advocacy programs accordingly,
aligning with inclusivity and social justice principles. Feuerbacher et al. (2019) also highlight the
importance of providing extension services to indigenous communities, further emphasizing the
need to tailor approaches to meet their unique needs. Additionally, Conley and Reich (2018) discuss
the role of advocacy programs in promoting social justice, supporting the idea that advocating for
the specific needs of indigenous communities is essential.

LMCDAC's advocacy programs cover many vital issues, including Indigenous People
Advocacy and Development, Hunger Alleviation, Sustainable Environment, Disaster Risk Reduction,
Health and well-being, Poverty Alleviation, Socio-Pastoral and Evangelization, and Education for All.
These programs promote inclusivity, social justice, and sustainable development within Ipil Cuneg
as its adopted communities.

The Background Augmenting Stage was pivotal in facilitating the development of discipline-
based extension projects through community profiling and needs assessment. Extensionists
carefully undertook these essential processes to ensure the creation of well-informed and tailored
initiatives. In the community engagement stage that followed, the identified projects were validated
by the community heads of households, further emphasizing the importance of their involvement in
the decision-making process.

Recognizing the significance of extension services in fostering community development,

community profiling and needs assessment have emerged as indispensable tools. While community
profiling has traditionally been acknowledged as an effective means of promoting community
development, its scope has expanded to encompass the generation of baseline data for policy-
making and service-delivery processes (Hawtin & Percy-Smith, 2007). In this context, it becomes
evident that community profiling serves a dual purpose, enabling comprehensive community
development and informed decision-making.

Similarly, needs assessment shares commonalities with community profiling but focuses on
achieving specific outcomes that must be realized. By systematically gathering data on community
needs, priorities, strategies, solutions, and actions can be identified and analyzed (Office of Migrant
Education, 2001). This analytical approach ensures that resources and efforts are appropriately
directed toward addressing the most pressing requirements of the community, maximizing the
potential for positive impact and sustainable development.

This paper, therefore, provides a summary of the community profiling and needs
assessments of the community. These became the bases for the initial crafting of extension project
proposals.

Research Objective/s

The primary objective of this report was to conduct a comprehensive profiling and needs
assessment of the residents in Ipil Cuneg. Additionally, it aimed to identify potential projects that
could be implemented based on the findings. The specific objectives of this report were as follows:

1. To assess the satisfaction levels and ratings of the services provided by the Barangay in Ipil
Cuneg, as perceived by the residents.
2. To evaluate the residents' perceptions of safety and security in Ipil Cuneg.
3. To identify and gain a comprehensive understanding of the major problems and challenges
faced by the community and its residents.
4. To determine the availability and accessibility of resources within the community for the
residents.
5. To examine the extent of internet access among the residents in Ipil Cuneg.
6. To investigate the types of gadgets that residents have at their disposal for accessing the
internet.

Framework

Methodology

A. Research Design
B. Research Participants
C. Research Environment
D. Research Instrument
E. Treatment of Data

Results and Discussion

Section 1.

Variable Group Frequency Percentage

Purok Purok 1 60 37.7
Purok 2 60 37.7
Purok 3 33 20.8
Purok 4 3 1.9
Age 1 - 20 y/o 3 1.9
21 - 30 y/o 26 16.4
31 - 40 y/o 31 19.5
41 - 50 y/o 35 22
51 - 60 y/o 29 18.2
 61 - 70 y/o 12 7.5
71 - 80 y/o 13 8.2
Sex Male 13 8.2
Female 97 61
Religion Roman Catholic 108 67.9
Born Again 13 8.2
Methodist 8 5
Pentecostal 3 1.9
Others 2 1.3
Length of Stay in the 1- 5 yrs 15 9.4
Current Address 6 - 10 yrs 4 2.5
11 - 15 yrs 8 5
16 - 20 yrs 4 2.5
20 years ~ above 96 60.4
Civil Status Single 11 6.9
Married 77 48.4
Widow/er 54 34
Separated 9 5.7
Unknown 6 3.8
No. of Children None 5 3.1
1 child 25 15.7
2 children 27 17
3 children 28 17.6
4 children 17 10.7
5 children 19 11.9
6 children 8 5
7 children 6 3.8
8 children 2 1.3
9 and above 1 0.6
No answer 21 13.2
Other Dependents None 4 2.5
1 Male Dependent 10 6.3
2 Male Dependents 3 1.9
3 Male Dependents 9 5.7
4 Male Dependents 1 0.6
5 Male Dependents 1 0.6
No answer 130 81.8
Ethnolinguistic Group Tagalog 4 2.5
Ilocano 56 35.2
Panggalatot 1 0.6
Tuwali 7 4.4
Gaddang 6 3.8
Ayangan 70 44
Ibaloi 1 0.6
Kankana-ey 5 3.1
No answer 4 2.5
Highest Educational No Grade Level Completed 8 5
Attainment Grade 1 - 3 19 11.9
Grade 4 - 6 22 13.8
Entered High School but did not
32 20.1
finish
High School Graduate 33 20.8
 Finished a vocational course 9 5.7
Entered College but did not
11 6.9
graduate
College Graduate 15 9.4
M.A., M.S., Ph.D. 1 0.6
Occupation House Wife/ House Husband 17 10.7
Farmer 38 23.9
Gardener 12 7.5
Tricycle Driver 11 6.9
Construction Worker 5 3.1
Laborer 8 5
Cook 1 0.6
Senior Citizen 8 5
Auto Mechanic 1 0.6
Sales Lady 1 0.6
Carpenter 1 0.6
Technician 1 0.6
Helper/ Housekeeper/ Maid 5 3.1
Private Employee 5 3.1
Student Worker 1 0.6
Store Owner 1 0.6
Brgy. Tanod 2 1.3
Student 1 0.6
No Answer 25 15.7
Status of Employment Regular 24 15.1
Irregular 76 47.8
No answer 56 35.2
Industry where major Agriculture 78 49.1
wage earner in the Mining 4 2.5
family Construction 12 7.5
Manufacturing 2 1.3
Retail/Wholesale 1 0.6
Transportation, Communications,
5 3.1
and Public Utilities
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 1 0.6
Government (Includes Educations) 3 1.9
Services (Includes Retail) 2 1.3
Homemaker 5 3.1
Student 3 1.9
Others 23 14.5
No answer 20 12.6
Gross Total Family Less than 1000 Php 31 19.5
Income 1000 - 2999Php 49 30.8
3000 - 4999Php 22 13.8
5000 - 6999Php 15 9.4
7000 - 8999Php 5 3.1
9000 - 10999Php 5 3.1
13000 or more 7 4.4
No answer 25 15.7
No. of Person lived in None 7 4.4
the household 1 person 3 1.9
2 persons 15 9.4
3 persons 19 11.9
 4 persons 20 12.6
5 persons 17 10.7
6 persons 16 10.1
7 persons 9 5.7
8 persons 7 4.4
9 persons 1 0.6
No answer 45 28.3
Type of Construction Strong materials (galvanized iron,
Materials are the aluminum, tile, concrete, brick, 63 39.6
Roof of Household stone, wood, asbestos)
made off Light Materials 8 5
Salvaged/ Makeshift Materials 7 4.4
Mixed but Predominantly Strong
26 16.4
Materials
Mixed but Predominantly Light
28 17.6
Materials
Mixed but Predominantly Salvaged
7 4.4
Materials
No answer 19 11.9
Type of Building the Single House 127 79.9
Household Reside Duplex 6 3.8
Apartment/Condominium/
1 0.6
Townhouse
Commercials/Industrial/
4 2.5
Agricultural Building or House
No answer 21 13.2
Tenure Status of the Own House and lot; or Owner-like
109 68.6
Property Occupied by Possession of House and Lot
the Family Rented House/ Room including Lot 8 5
Own House but Rented Lot 2 1.3
Own House, Rent-Free Lot with
9 5.7
Consent of Owner
Own House, Rent-Free Lot without
2 1.3
Consent of Owner
Rent-Free House and Lot with
5 3.1
Consent of Owner
Rent-Free House and Lot without
4 2.5
Consent of Owner
No answer 20 12.6
Toilet Facilty of the Water-sealed 83 52.2
House Closed Pit 36 22.6
Open Pit 15 9.4
Others (pails, etc.) 4 2.5
None 2 1.3
No answer 16 10.1
Presence of Electricy Yes 92 57.9
No 21 13.2
No answer 35 22
Household's Main Own Use, Faucet, Community Water
21 13.2
Water Source System
Shared, Faucet, Community Water
12 7.5
System
Own Use, Tubed / Piped Well 7 4.4
Shared, Tubed / Piped Well 13 8.2
Dug Well 3 1.9
Spring, River, Stream, etc. 86 54.1
 Peddler 4 2.5
No answer 11 6.9
Type of Disabilty Hearing 6 3.8
does a household Visual 6 3.8
member have Speech 2 1.3
Orthopedic 2 1.3
Mental 1 0.6
Other 10 6.3
No household member is disabled 74 46.5
No answer 52 32.7

Section 2. Rating of the Services offered by the Barangay

Roads/Dike/Sidewalks
Ambulance Services

Health Services for

Garbage Collection
Barangay Lupon
Barangay Police

Recreation Sites
Fire Protection

Postal Services
Street Lighting

Curfew Hours
Rating

Drainage
Infants

10. 12. 11. 10. 12.

Excellent 5.7 10.7 6.9 5.7 1.3 8.2
7 6 3 1 1.3 6
30. 32. 13. 22. 10. 15. 10. 10. 10. 13.
Good 12.6
8 1 8 0 1 7 7 7 8.2 7 8
12. 11. 13. 11. 10. 18. 13.
Fair 7.5 8.2 3.1 9.4 8.2
6 9 2 9 1 9 2
11. 10. 15.
Poor 3.1 1.9 7.5 4.4 3.1 4.4 6.9 5.0
3 1 7 7.5
14. 11.
Not Aware 2.5 6.3 3.1 3.8 6.3 6.3 3.1 5.0
0 5 3.8 3
43. 45. 54. 55.3 51. 51. 53. 53. 53. 60. 51. 49.
No Answer
4 3 7 5 6 6 3 5 5 4 6 7

Section 3. Safety in Barangay

Rating During Day Time During Night Time

Very Safe 45.9 39.6

Safe 31.4 24.5
Undecided .6 6.9
Unsafe 0.0 4.4
Very Unsafe 1.9 1.9
No answer 19.5 20.8
 No
Yes

Don't
know
Rating
10.1 18.9 13.8 Condition of the Houses
11.3 16.4 10.1 Cost of Housing
6.3 29.6 3.1 Vandalism
8.8 22.0 10.7 Out-of-School Youth
6.3 18.9 16.4 Drainage/Dike
6.3 18.9 15.7 Non Observance of Curfew Hours
Section 4. Problem/s in Barangay

5.7 8.2 28.3 Lack of Employment

7.5 28.9 5.0 Child Abuse
10.7 18.9 10.7 Lack of Affordable Mental Health Services
6.9 17.6 13.8 Pre-natal Pregnancy
7.5 20.8 10.7 Problems Getting Children Immunized

Section 5. Resources for the residents of the Community

5.7 28.3 2.5 Illicit Drug Use
7.5 20.8 9.4 Tobacco Use
10.1 21.4 6.3 Lack of Community Care for Frail Elders
12.6 20.1 6.3 Elementary Pupil's Drop-outs
4.4 18.2 16.4 Problems on Anti-rabies Vaccination
5.0 28.3 5.0 Outdoor Air Quality
4.4 25.2 8.2 Noise
4.4 14.5 20.1 Bug or Rodent Infestation
2.5 9.4 25.2 Lack of Access to Transportation
7.5 14.5 18.9 Problems on Drinking Intoxicated Liquors
8.8 13.8 16.4 Low Paying Jobs Without Benefits
 Adequate Food Inspection and
Adequate Child Care Facilities

Adequate Waste Management

Adequate Preschool Facilities

Adequate Disaster Response

Adequate Health Center and
Children with Special Needs

Adequate Opportunities for

Adequate Opportunities for

Adequate Neighborhood
Adequate Education for

Adequate Recreational

Other Medical Services

Programs for Children

Adequate Services for

Higher Education
Rating

Safety Programs
Playgrounds

Job Training
Children

Plans
26. 23. 20. 32. 20. 25.
18.9 23.9 13.2 18.2 19.5
Yes 39 4 9 1 1 8 2
12. 13. 11. 15. 13.
14.5 11.9 8.8 18.2 16.4 18.2
No 6.3 6 8 9 1 8
Don't
3.8 5.0 7.5 5.0 7.5 5.7 10.1 8.8 5 5.7 4.4
know 3.1

Section 6. Access to the Internet

Rating Frequency Percent

Yes 23 14.5
No 106 66.7

Section 7. Gadget they have access to the internet

Computer at Computer at Computer at an

home Work establishment Others
Percen Percen Percen Percen
Freq Freq Freq Freq
t t t t
Yes 4 2.5 5 3.1 6 3.8 6 3.8
No 82 51.6 80 50.3 79 49.7 62 39
No answer 72 45.3 73 45.9 73 45.9 80 50.3

Conclusion and Recommendations

Appendices

References

Agholor, I. A., Monde, N., Obi, A., & Sunday, O. A. (2013). Quality of extension services: A case study of
farmers in Amathole. Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(2), 204.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v5n2p204

Hawtin, M. & Percy-Smith, J. (2007). Community profiling: A practical guide. Open University Press.
McGraw-Gill Education: England.

Office of Migrant Education. (2001). Comprehensive needs assessment. New Directors Orientation.

Conley, E. J., & Reich, S. M. (2018). Advocacy Programs for Social Justice: A Review of Approaches
and Outcomes. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 703-725.
Feuerbacher, K. B., et al. (2019). A Review of Extension Service Delivery to Indigenous Communities.
Journal of Extension, 57(1), 1-12.

Anucha, U. (2018). Indigenous Community Development in Canada: A Review of Key Themes.

Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 9(1), 5-25.