AGE

Response N %
18-25 years old 29 19.33%
26-35years old 97 64.67%
36 years old and above 24 16.00%
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of,

AGE
36 years old and above;
18-25 years old; 29;
24; 16%
19%

26-35years old; 97; 65%

18-25 years old 26-35years old 36 years old and above

The figure above shows the age profile of the respondents. There were twenty-nine (29)
respondents under 18-25 years old that was equivalent to 19% of the entire population of the
study. There were ninety-seven (97) respondents under 26-35 years old that was equivalent to
65%. There were twenty-four (24) respondents under 36 years old and above that was equivalent
to 16% of the entire population of the study.
 GENDER
Response N %
Male 36 24.00%
Female 114 76.00%

GENDER

Male; 36; 24%

Female; 114; 76%

Male Female

The figure above shows the gender of the respondents. There were thirty-six (36) male
respondents that was equivalent to 24% and there were one hundred fourteen (114) female
respondents that was equivalent to 76% of the entire population of the study.
 CIVIL STATUS
Response N %
Single 26 17.33%
Married 121 80.67%
Widow 3 2.00%

CIVIL STATUS
Widow; 3; 2%
Single; 26; 17%

Married; 121; 81%

Single Married Widow

The figure above shows the civil status of the respondents. There were twenty-six (26)
respondents who were single that was equivalent to 17%. There were one hundred twenty-one
(121) respondents who were married that was equivalent to 81%, and there were three (3)
respondents who were widowed that was equivalent to 2% of the entire population of the study.
 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Response N %
Elementary level 7 4.67%
Highschool level 29 19.33%
College level 73 48.67%
Others 41 27.33%

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Elementary level; 7; 5%

Others; 41; 27%

Highschool level; 29; 19%

College level; 73; 49%

Elementary level Highschool level College level Others

The figure above shows the educational attainment of the respondents. There were seven
(7) respondents under elementary level that was equivalent to 5%. There were twenty-nine (29)
respondents under high school level that was equivalent to 19%. There were seventy-three (73)
respondents under college level that was equivalent to 49%, and there were forty-one (41)
respondents answered others that was equivalent to 27% of the entire population of the study.
 OCCUPATION
Response N %
Employed 96 64.00%
Unemployed 54 36.00%

OCCUPATION

Unemployed; 54; 36%

Employed; 96; 64%

Employed Unemployed

The figure above shows the employment status of the respondents. There were ninety-six
(96) respondents who were employed that was equivalent to 64%, and there were fifty-four (54)
respondents who were unemployed that was equivalent to 36% of the entire population of the
study.
 2. What are the factors affecting the implementation of barangay ordinance?

COMMUNITY

Indicator Frequency (%) Mean Std. Dev.

Enforcement: SA A SD D
1.Barangay ordinance are clearly 23% 75% 1% 0% 3.22 2.71
implemented by the
implementing authorities.
2. Individual adheres to the 15% 82% 3% 0% 3.13 2.61
implementation of the barangay
ordinance.
3. The system of strategically 11% 88% 1% 0% 3.11 2.58
implementing the barangay
ordinance is well understood by
the implementing authorities.

4. Weather or climate condition 8% 87% 6% 0% 3.02 2.50

affects the implementation of
ordinance.
5. Implementation of barangay 19% 78% 3% 0% 3.16 2.65
ordinance has strictly followed
through a well-structured policy

Scaling: 1.00-1.75 – Not affective, 1.76-2.50 – Less affective, 2.51-3.25 – Affective, 3.26-4.00 – Very
Affective

The table above shows the factors affecting the implementation of barangay ordinance
based on community perspective in terms of “enforcement”. Based on the findings presented in
table above, the factors affecting the implementation of barangay ordinance are Barangay
ordinances are clearly implemented by the implementing authorities ( x=3.22), Individual
adheres to the implementation of the barangay ordinance ( x=3.13 ), The system of strategically
implementing the barangay ordinance is well understood by the implementing authorities (
x=3.11), Weather or climate condition affects the implementation of ordinance ( x=3.02), and
Implementation of barangay ordinance has strictly followed through a well-structured policy (
x=3.16 ¿ .
 Indicator Frequency (%) Mean Std. Dev.
Policy SA A SD D
1. The applicability of the crafted 22% 78% 0% 0% 3.22 2.70
and innovated ordinances guided
with proper knowledge affects
the effectiveness of the
ordinances.

2. The proper consideration of 20% 80% 1% 0% 3.23 2.69

the different aspects such as
social, political and economic
context I a certain community
has greatly affected the
implantation of the ordinances

3. Considerations on the different 9% 89% 2% 0% 3.07 2.54

strategies of the legal framework
can affects the reliability and
effectiveness of the ordinances

4. Internal influence such as 11% 89% 0% 0% 3.11 2.58

political activity in the barangay
is one of the factors that can
affect the implementation of the
ordinance

5. The external influence of 27% 71% 2% 0% 3.25 2.74

another place outside the
barangay can also affect the
effectiveness of the ordinances
implemented by the barangay
officials

Scaling: 1.00-1.75 – Not affective, 1.76-2.50 – Less affective, 2.51-3.25 – Affective, 3.26-4.00 – Very
Affective

The table above shows the factors affecting the implementation of barangay ordinance
based on community perspective in terms of “policy”. Based on the findings presented in table
above, the factors affecting the implementation of barangay ordinance are the applicability of the
crafted and innovated ordinances guided with proper knowledge affects the effectiveness of the
ordinances ( x=3.22), The proper consideration of the different aspects such as social, political
and economic context in a certain community has greatly affected the implantation of the
ordinances ( x=3.23), Considerations on the different strategies of the legal framework can
affects the reliability and effectiveness of the ordinances ( x=3.07 ), Internal influence such as
political activity in the barangay is one of the factors that can affect the implementation of the
ordinance ( x=3.11), and The external influence of another place outside the barangay can also
affect the effectiveness of the ordinances implemented by the barangay officials ( x=3.25 ¿.
 BARANGAY OFFICIALS
Indicator Frequency (%) Mean Std. Dev.
Enforcement: SA A SD D
1.Barangay ordinance are clearly 38% 63% 0% 0% 3.38 2.87
implemented by the implementing
authorities.
2. Individual adheres to the 25% 75% 0% 0% 3.25 2.74
implementation of the barangay
ordinance.
3. The system of strategically 38% 63% 0% 0% 3.38 2.87
implementing the barangay
ordinance is well understood by
the implementing authorities.

4. Weather or climate condition 38% 50% 13% 0% 3.25 2.78

affects the implementation of
ordinance.
5. Implementation of barangay 25% 75% 0% 0% 3.25 2.74
ordinance has strictly followed
through a well-structured policy

Scaling: 1.00-1.75 – Not affective, 1.76-2.50 – Less affective, 2.51-3.25 – Affective, 3.26-4.00 – Very
Affective

The table above shows the factors affecting the implementation of barangay ordinance
based on barangay officials’ perspective in terms of “enforcement”. Based on the findings
presented in table above, the factors affecting the implementation of barangay ordinance are
Barangay ordinances are clearly implemented by the implementing authorities ( x=3.38 ),
Individual adheres to the implementation of the barangay ordinance ( x=3.25 ), The system of
strategically implementing the barangay ordinance is well understood by the implementing
authorities ( x=3.38), Weather or climate condition affects the implementation of ordinance (
x=3.25 ), and Implementation of barangay ordinance has strictly followed through a well-
structured policy ( x=3.25 ¿.
 Indicator Frequency (%) Mean Std. Dev.
Policy SA A SD D
1. The applicability of the crafted 25% 75% 0% 0% 3.25 2.74
and innovated ordinances guided
with proper knowledge affects the
effectiveness of the ordinances.

2. The proper consideration of the 13% 88% 0% 0% 3.13 2.60

different aspects such as social,
political and economic context I a
certain community has greatly
affected the implantation of the
ordinances

3. Considerations on the different 25% 75% 0% 0% 3.25 2.74

strategies of the legal framework
can affects the reliability and
effectiveness of the ordinances

4. Internal influence such as 25% 75% 0% 0% 3.25 2.74

political activity in the barangay
is one of the factors that can
affect the implementation of the
ordinance

5. The external influence of 25% 50% 25% 0% 3.00 2.55

another place outside the
barangay can also affect the
effectiveness of the ordinances
implemented by the barangay
officials

Scaling: 1.00-1.75 – Not affective, 1.76-2.50 – Less affective, 2.51-3.25 – Affective, 3.26-4.00 – Very
Affective

The table above shows the factors affecting the implementation of barangay ordinance
based on barangay officials’ perspective in terms of “policy”. Based on the findings presented in
table above, the factors affecting the implementation of barangay ordinance are the applicability
of the crafted and innovated ordinances guided with proper knowledge affects the effectiveness
of the ordinances ( x=3.25 ), The proper consideration of the different aspects such as social,
political and economic context in a certain community has greatly affected the implantation of
the ordinances ( x=3.13 ), Considerations on the different strategies of the legal framework can
affects the reliability and effectiveness of the ordinances ( x=3.25 ), Internal influence such as
political activity in the barangay is one of the factors that can affect the implementation of the
ordinance ( x=3.25 ), and The external influence of another place outside the barangay can also
affect the effectiveness of the ordinances implemented by the barangay officials ( x=3.00 ¿.
 3. Is there a significant difference between the response of the barangay officials and
community?

One-way ANOVA: Enforcement

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05

Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Factor Information Interval Plot of Enforcement

95% CI for the Mean
3.40
Factor Levels Values
Factor 2 Community, Barangay Official 3.35

3.30

Analysis of Variance 3.25

Data
3.20
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Factor 1 0.07503 0.075030 15.01 0.005 3.15

Error 8 0.03998 0.004997 3.10

Total 9 0.11501
3.05
Community Barangay Official

Model Summary The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

0.0706894 65.24% 60.90% 45.69% Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Difference of Means for Enforcement

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Community 5 3.1268 0.0728 (3.0539, 3.1997)
Barangay Official 5 3.3000 0.0685 (3.2271, 3.3729)
Barangay Off - Community

Pooled StDev = 0.0706894

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Barangay Official 5 3.3000 A
Community 5 3.1268 B

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

ANOVA: Factors affecting the implementation of Barangay Ordinance

(Enforement)
Course Df Adj. SS Adg. MS F-Value P-Value
Community
Barangay Officials 1 0.07503 0.075030 15.01 0.005
Error 8 0.03998 0.004997
Total 9 0.11501

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted to a p-value of 0.000 which is lesser than
the alpha value of 0.05. This suggests that we reject the null hypothesis that all means were equal
under the different courses of the study.
One-way ANOVA: Policy

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05 Interval Plot of Policy
95% CI for the Mean
3.30
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
3.25

Factor Information
3.20

Data
Factor Levels Values
Factor 2 Community_1, Barangay Official_1 3.15

3.10

Analysis of Variance
Community_1 Barangay Official_1

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

Factor 1 0.000003 0.000003 0.00 0.987

Error 8 0.075094 0.009387
Total 9 0.075097 Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Difference of Means for Policy

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

0.0968854 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Barangay Off - Community_1

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

Community_1 5 3.1761 0.0792 (3.0761, 3.2760)

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.
Barangay Official_1 5 3.1750 0.1118 (3.0751, 3.2749)

Pooled StDev = 0.0968854

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Community_1 5 3.1761 A
Barangay Official_1 5 3.1750 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

ANOVA: Factors affecting the implementation of Barangay Ordinance

(Enforement)
Course Df Adj. SS Adg. MS F-Value P-Value
Community
Barangay Officials 1 0.07503 0.000003 0.00 0.987
Error 8 0.03998 0.009387
Total 9 0.11501

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted to a p-value of 0.987 which is greater than
the alpha value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were
equal under the different courses of the study.