IV.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Profile of the Respondents.

Tables 1 – 4 show the distribution of the profile of the respondents.

Table 1. Age Profile of the Respondents.

Age Freq. Percentag Rank
e
Barangay Officials
46 years old and above 27 45.76 1
41 – 45 years old 13 22.03 2
36 – 40 years old 10 16.95 3
31 – 35 years old 7 11.86 4
26 – 30 years old 2 3.39 5
Total 59 100
Community Members
21 – 25 years old 43 21.18 1
36 – 40 years old 39 19.21 2
26 – 30 years old 35 17.24 3
46 years old and above 33 16.26 4
41 – 45 years old 31 15.27 5
31 – 35 years old 22 10.84 6
Total 203 100

As seen in Table 1, the age range of 46 years old and above gained the highest

frequency count of 27 or 45.76% at rank 1 for the Barangay Official-respondents while

the age range of 26 – 30 years old got the least frequency count of two or 3.39% at rank

5.

On the part of the Community Member-respondents, 21 – 25 years old obtained

the highest frequency count of 43 or 21.18% at rank 1 whereas 31 – 35 years old made

the least frequency count of 22 or 10.84% at rank 6.

 Table 2. Gender Profile of the Respondents.
Gender Freq. Percentag Rank
e
Barangay Officials
Male 34 57.63 1
Female 25 42.37 2
Total 59 100
Community Members
Male 105 51.72 1
Female 98 48.28 2
Total 203 100

As revealed in Table 2, 34 or 57.63% out of 59 total Barangay Official-

respondents at rank 1 were male while 25 or 42.37% at rank 2 were female.

With respect to the gender of the community member, 105 of them or 51.72% at

rank 1 were male while 98 or 48.28% at rank 2 were female..

Table 3. Civil Status Profile of the Respondents.

Civil Status Freq. Percentag Rank
e
Barangay Officials
Married 47 79.66 1
Single 8 13.356 2
Widow 4 6.78 3
Total 59 100
Community Members
Married 103 50.74 1
Single 86 42.36 2
Widow 14 6.90 3
Total 203 100

As reflected in Table 3, married yielded the highest frequency count of 47 or

79.66% at rank 1 for the Barangay Official-respondents whereas widow made the least

frequency count of four or 6.78% at rank 3.

 With regards to the civil status of the community member-respondents, 103 of

them or 50.74% at rank 1 were married whereas 14 or 6.90% at rank 4 were already

widowed.

Table 4. Position Profile of the Respondents.

Position Freq. Percentag Rank
e
Barangay Officials
Barangay Tanod 24 40.68 1
Barangay Councilor 20 33.90 2
Barangay Health Worker 12 20.34 3
Barangay Captain 1 1.69 5
Barangay Cashier 1 1.69 5
Barangay Treasurer 1 1.69 5
Total 59 100

As presented in Table 4, barangay tanod got the highest frequency count of 24 or

40.68% at rank 1. On the other hand, Barangay Captain, Barangay Treasurer and

Barangay Cashier gained equal frequency counts of one or 1.69% at ranks 5.

2. Assessment of Respondents on the Assessment of the Respondents on

Disaster Preparedness of Selected Barangays.

Tables 5 – 7 show the assessment of respondents on the disaster preparedness

of selected Barangays.
 2.1. In Terms of Planning.

Table 5.1. Assessment of Respondents on the Assessment of the Barangay

Official-Respondents on Disaster Preparedness of Selected Barangays in Terms
of in Terms of Planning.
Items WM VI R
May nakalaan na komitiba ang barangay para sa pag-hahanda at 3.75 LS 1.5
pagpaplano sa sakuna.
Ang opisyal ng barangay, miyembro ng komunidad, at ang mga 3.75 LS 1.5
awtoridad ng iba pang mga kaugnay na institusyon ay nagtulungan sa
pag-unlad ngplanongsakuna.
Ipinapaalam ng opisyal ng barangay sa komunidad na ang kanilang 3.68 LS 3
barangay ay malapit sa posibleng pag guho ng lupa.
Ang kumunidad ay katulong ng mga opisyal ng barangay patungkol sa 3.51 LS 4
pagbuo ng plano at paghahanda sa sakuna
Ang mga drills na may kinalaman sa mga aksyon na dapat gawin sa 3.49 LS 5
panahon ng kalamidad ay binibigyang pansin ng opisyal ng barangay
bilang isang bahagi ng mgaaktibidadsabarangay.
Nakikita naming ang suporta at tulong ng ilang espesyalista tulad ng 3.39 LS 6
doktor, inhinyero, elektrisista, atbp. ay nakuha upang maging handa
para sa mga kalamidad.
Tinitiyak ng opisyal ng barangay ang pagsasama ng ilang mga seminar 3.36 LS 7.5
o programa na nagtuturo ng paraan ng proteksyon sa mga kalamidad.
Pinag-aaraalan mabuti ang isinasagawang seminar ng barangay para 3.36 LS 7.5
sa paghahanda sa sakuna.
Kumukuha ang opisyal ng barangay ng datos ng mga tao at ang 3.34 LS 9
kanilang mga kakayahan, kagamitan, direktoryo at lokasyon.
Nag-tatatag, nag-sasanay,,nag-bibigay ng kasangkapan at 3.29 LS 10
nangangasiwa sa local emergency response team at mga kinikilalang
community disaster volunteers.
Composite Mean 3.49 LS
Legend: LS = Lubusang Sumasang-ayon WM = Weighted Meean
VI = Verbal Interpretation R = Rank

As refelected in Table 5.1, the items “May nakalaan na komitiba ang barangay

para sa pag-hahanda at pagpaplano sa sakuna” and “Ang opisyal ng barangay,

miyembro ng komunidad, at ang mga awtoridad ng iba pang mga kaugnay na

institusyon ay nagtulungan sa pag-unlad ngplanongsakuna” made the highest and

equal weighted means of 3.75 and equal ranks of 1.5. On the contrary, the item “Nag-

tatatag, nag-sasanay,,nag-bibigay ng kasangkapan at nangangasiwa sa local

emergency response team at mga kinikilalang community disaster volunteers” gained

the least weighted mean of 3.29 and least rank of 10.

All the items, including the composite mean of 3.49 were rated as “lubusan

sumasang-ayon”.

Table 5.2. Assessment of Respondents on the Assessment of the Community

Member-Respondents on Disaster Preparedness of Selected Barangays in Terms
of in Terms of Planning.
Items WM VI R
Ipinapaalam ng opisyal ng barangay sa komunidad na ang kanilang 3.37 LS 1
barangay ay malapit sa posibleng pag guho ng lupa.
Ang opisyal ng barangay, miyembro ng komunidad, at ang mga 3.36 LS 2
awtoridad ng iba pang mga kaugnay na institusyon ay nagtulungan sa
pag-unlad ng plano ng sakuna.
Ang mga drills na may kinalaman sa mga aksyon na dapat gawin sa 3.35 LS 3
panahon ng kalamidad ay binibigyang pansin ng opisyal ng barangay
bilang isang bahagi ng mga aktibidad sa barangay.
Nakikita namin na nakikipag-tulungan ang opisyal ng barangay sa iba 3.32 LS 4
pang ahensya ng gobyerno kapag nagsasagawa ng quarterly drill o
seminar.
Tinitiyak ng opisyal ng barangay ang paglahok ng komunidad sa 3.30 LS 5
mgaprogramapatungosapaghahandasasakuna
Ang mga plano na ibinibigay sa bawat barangay ay ibinabahagi at 3.28 LS 6
sinasamasa seminarparasapaghahandasasakuna.
Nakikita namin ang suporta at tulong ng ilang espesyalista tulad ng 3.26 LS 7.5
doktor, inhinyero, elektrisista, atbp. Ay nakuha
upangmaginghandaparasamgakalamidad.
Nagsasagawa ng quarterly drill o seminar 3.26 LS 7.5
angbarangayparasapaghahandasasakuna.
Kumukuha ang opisyal ng barangay ng datos ng mga tao at ang 3.21 S 9
kanilangmgakakayahan, kagamitan, direktoryo at lokasyon.
Tinitiyak ng opisyal ng barangay ang pagsasama ng ilang mga seminar 3.20 S 10
o programa na nagtuturo ng paraan ng proteksyon sa mga kalamidad.
Composite Mean 3.29 LS
Legend: LS = Lubusang Sumasang-ayon WM = Weighted Meean
S = Sumasang-ayon VI = Verbal Interpretation
R = Rank
As discussed in Table 5.2, the item “Ipinapaalam ng opisyal ng barangay sa

komunidad na ang kanilang barangay ay malapit sa posibleng pag guho ng lupa”

yielded the highest weighted mean of 3.37 and highest rank of 1 with a verbal
interpretation of “lubusang sumasang-ayon”. Meanwhile, the item “Tinitiyak ng opisyal

ng barangay ang pagsasama ng ilang mga seminar o programa na nagtuturo ng paraan

ng proteksyon sa mga kalamidad” got the least weighted mean of 3.20 or sumasang-

ayon and least rank of 10.

The composite mean of 3.29 was described as “lubusang sumasang-ayon”.

2.2. In Terms of Training.

Table 6.1. Assessment of Respondents on the Assessment of the Barangay

Official-Respondents on Disaster Preparedness of Selected Barangays in Terms
of in Terms of Training.
Items WM VI R
May nakalaanna “evacuation area” angbarangay kung sakali man 3.66 LS 1
magkaroonngdiinaasahangsakuna.
Ibinabahagingopisyalngbarangayangmgaplanona may kaugnayansa 3.46 LS 2
mga yugto ng isang inaasahang kalamidad (bago, sa panahon at
pagkatapos) ay binuo sa mga seminar
Ang ilang mga gawain tulad ng mga workshop at seminar ay 3.41 LS 3
sinasagawaupangitaasangantas ng kamalayan
parasamgakalamidadsamgapribado at pampublikongsektor.
Sinasanayngopisyalngbarangayangmga sector na may mas- 3.39 LS 4.5
nangangailanganngpasintuladkababaihan, bata, matatanda at may
mgakapansanansapaghahandasasakuna.
Ipinaaalam ng opisyal ng barangay kung saannaroroon evacuation 3.39 LS 4.5
area.
Tinuturongopisyalngbarangaysakumunidadangkanilangnatutunan sa 3.37 LS 6
survival at lifesaving seminar mula sa
pinagkakatiwalaangahensiyangpamahalaan.
Nakikitanaminnanakikipag-tulunganangopisyalngbarangaysaiba pang 3.36 LS 7
ahensyanggobyernokapagnagsasagawang quarterly drill o seminar.
Mayroong pagsisikap at pag tutulungan ang opisyal at ang kumunidad 3.34 LS 8
ng barangay upang mapahusay ang antas ng kinakailangang mga
kasanayan at kaalaman para sa para sa sakuna
Nakikita naming na nakikipagtulungan ang opisyal ng barangy sa ibang 3.31 LS 9
ahensya ng gobyerno kapag nagsasagawa ng “quarterly drill” o
seminar.
Sinasanay namin ang aming sarili sa “duck and cover” 3.15 S 10
Composite Mean 3.38 LS
Legend: LS = Lubusang Sumasang-ayon WM = Weighted Meean
 S = Sumasang-ayon VI = Verbal Interpretation
R = Rank
As gleaned in Table 6.1, the item “May nakalaan na “evacuation area” ang

barangay kung sakali man magkaroon ng di inaasahang sakuna” made the highest

weighted mean of 3.66 or lubos na sumasang-ayon and the highest rank of 1. On the

contrary, the item “Sinasanay namin ang aming sarili sa “duck and cover”” garnered the

least weighted mean of 3.10 or sumasang-ayon and the least rank of 10.

The composite mean of 3.38 was rated as “lubusang sumasang-ayon”.

Table 6.2. Assessment of Respondents on the Assessment of the Community

Member-Respondents on Disaster Preparedness of Selected Barangays in Terms
of in Terms of Training.
Items WM VI R
Sinasanay ng opisyal ng barangay ang mga pinakamahihirap na sector 3.31 LS 1
tuladkababaihan, bata, matatanda at PWD sapaghahandasasakuna.
Mayroong pagsisikap at pag tutulungan ang opisyal at ang kumunidad 3.30 LS 2
ng barangay upang mapahusay ang antas ng kinakailangang mga
kasanayan at kaalaman para sa para sa sakuna
Ipinaaalamngopisyalngbarangay kung saannaroroon evacuation area. 3.29 LS 3
Ang opisyal at komunidad ng Barangay ay patuloysapagsasanaysapag- 3.27 LS 4
protekta, pag-lisan at sapag-liligtas.
Nag-tatatag, nag-sasanay,, nag-bibigay ng kasangkapan at 3.26 LS 5
nangangasiwa sa local emergency response team at mga kinikilalang
community disaster volunteers.
Ang mga plano na may kaugnayan sa mga yugto ng isang inaasahang 3.25 LS 7
kalamidad (bago, sa panahon at pagkatapos) ay binuo sa mga seminar
Ang ilang mga gawain tulad ng mga workshop at seminar ay 3.25 LS 7
sinasagawa upang itaas ang antas ng kamalayan
parasamgakalamidadsamgapribado at pampublikongsektor
Ipinahayag ng opisyal ng barangay ang gagawin at hindi dapat gawin sa 3.25 LS 7
panahon ng kalamidad
Sinasanay namin ang aming sarili sa “duck and cover” 3.24 S 9
Tinuturo ng opisyal ng barangay sa amin ang kanilang natutunan sa 3.19 S 10
survival at lifesaving seminar
mulasapinagkakatiwalaangahensiyangpamahalaan.
Composite Mean 3.26 LS
Legend: LS = Lubusang Sumasang-ayon WM = Weighted Meean
S = Sumasang-ayon VI = Verbal Interpretation
R = Rank
 As reflected in Table 6.2, the item “Sinasanay ng opisyal ng barangay ang mga

pinakamahihirap na sector tulad ng kababaihan, bata, matatanda at PWD sa

paghahanda sa sakuna” got the highest weighted mean of 3.31 or lubos na sumasang-

ayon and the highest rank of 1. On the other hand, the item “Tinuturo ng opisyal ng

barangay sa amin ang kanilang natutunan sa survival at lifesaving seminar mula sa

pinagkakatiwalaang ahensiya ng pamahalaan” obtained the least weighted mean of

3.19 or sumasang-ayon and the least rank of 10.

The composite mean of 3.26 was described as “lubusang sumasang-ayon”.

2.3. In Terms of Facilities.

Table 7.1. Assessment of Respondents on the Assessment of the Barangay

Official-Respondents on Disaster Preparedness of Selected Barangays in Terms
of in Terms of Facilities.
Items Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation Rank
Flashlight with extra batteries. 2.00 Meron 2
First aid kit 2.00 Meron 2
Pala 2.00 Meron 2
Pito 1.97 Meron 5.5
Medical equipment 1.97 Meron 5.5
Palakol/crowbar 1.97 Meron 5.5
Emergency contact number 1.97 Meron 5.5
Emergency lights 1.96 Meron 8
Kumot at pamalit na damit 1.92 Meron 10
Lighter at posporo 1.92 Meron 10
Kutsilyo 1.92 Meron 10
Hagdan 1.76 Meron 12
Tali 1.75 Meron 13
Battery operated radio/television 1.69 Meron 14
Stretcher 1.56 Meron 15
Wheelchair 1.36 Wala 16
Composite Mean 1.86 Meron
 As seen in Table 7.1, the barangay official-respondents assessed that they have

flashlight with extra batteries, first aid kit and pala as evidenced by the highest obtained

weighted means of 2.00 and the highest ranks of 2. Meanwhile, they assessed that they

don’t have wheelchair as shown by the least obtained weighted mean of 1.36 and leat

rank of 16.

The composite mean was 1.86 described as “meron”.

Table 7.2. Assessment of Respondents on the Assessment of the Community

Member-Respondents on Disaster Preparedness of Selected Barangays in Terms
of in Terms of Facilities.
Items Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation Rank
Kutsilyo 1.96 Meron 1.5
Lighter at posporo 1.96 Meron 1.5
Kumot at pamalit na damit 1.94 Meron 3.5
First aid kit 1.94 Meron 3.5
Flashlight with extra batteries. 1.90 Meron 5
Emergency contact number 1.89 Meron 7.5
Tali 1.89 Meron 7.5
Pala 1.89 Meron 7.5
Emergency lights 1.89 Meron 7.5
Palakol/crowbar 1.88 Meron 10
Pito 1.87 Meron 11
Hagdan 1.80 Meron 12
Medical equipment 1.75 Meron 13
Battery operated radio/television 1.74 Meron 14
Wheelchair 1.49 Meron 15
Stretcher 1.47 Wala 16
Composite Mean 1.83 Meron

As shown in Table 7.2, the community member-respondents assessed that they

have knife, lighter and match as shown by the highest obtained equal weighted means

of 1.96 and the highest ranks of 1.5. On the other hand, they assessed that they don’t

have stretcher as shown by the least obtained weighted mean of 1.47 and leat rank of

16.
 The composite mean was 1.83 described as “meron”.

3. Difference Between the Assessment of the Respondents on their Level of

Preparedness on Disaster.

Table 8 shows the difference between the assessment of the respondents on

their level of preparedness on disaster.

Table 8. Difference Between the Assessment of the Respondents on their Level of

Preparedness on Disaster.
Variables t-Value p-value Decision Interpretation
Planning 3.837 0.00016 p<0.01, Reject Ho Highly Significant
Training 1.584 0.11441 p>0.05, Accept Ho Not Significant
Facilities 0.977 0.32948 p>0.05, Accept Ho Not Significant

As discussed in the table, the computed t-value of 3.837 for for planning had a

corresponding p-value of 0.00015 which was less than the p-value of 0.01, thus

rejecting the null hypothesis.

These safely generalized that the assessment of the respondents have high

significant differences on the level preparedness on disaster in terms of planning.

On the other hand, the computed t-values of 1.584 for training and 0.977 for

facilities have corresponding p-values of 0.11441 and 0.32948, respectively which were

greater than the p-value of 0.05, thus accepting the null hypothesis.
 These safely concluded that the the assessment of the respondents have no

significant differences on the level preparedness on disaster in terms of training and

facilities.

4. Relationship Between the Demographic Profile of the Respondents and their

Level of Preparedness on Disasters.

Table 9 presents the relationship between the demographic profile of the

respondents and their level of preparedness on disasters..

Table 9. Relationship Between the Demographic Profile of the Respondents and

their Level of Preparedness on Disasters.
Variables X2 - p-value Decision Interpretation
Value
Planning:
Age 18.65 0.0973 p>0.05, Accept Ho Not Significant
Gender 8.23 0.0415 p<0.05, Reject Ho Significant
Civil Status 7.24 0.2992 p>0.05, Accept Ho Not Significant
Position 28.23 0.2072 p>0.05, Accept Ho Not Significant
Training:
Age 22.65 0.0308 p<0.05, Reject Ho Significant
Gender 9.55 0.0228 p<0.05, Reject Ho Significant
Civil Status 14.24 0.0271 p<0.05, Reject Ho Significant
Position 34.29 0.0242 p<0.05, Reject Ho Significant
Facilities:
Age 12.28 0.0154 p<0.05, Reject Ho Significant
Gender 10.24 0.0014 p<0.01, Reject Ho Highly Significant
Civil Status 9.21 0.0100 p<0.01, Reject Ho Highly Significant
Position 19.78 0.0014 p<0.01, Reject Ho Highly Significant

5. Based on the result of the study, what program can be proposed?

An Assessment the Level of Preparedness of

 Selected Barangay on Disaster: Basis for
Program Formulation”

Statement of the Problem

1. What is the demographic profile of the of respondents in terms of:
1.1. age;
1.2. gender;
1.3. civil status;
1.4. position?

2. To what extent is the assessment of the respondents on disaster preparedness of selected

public school in terms of:

2.1 planning
2.2 training;
2.3 facilities?

3. Is there a significant difference between the assessment of the respondents in the level of

preparedness on disaster?

4. Is there a significant relationship between the demographic profile of the respondents and in

the level of preparedness on disaster?

5. Based on the result of the study, what program can be proposed?